[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4520-4540]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 112.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 597 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the 
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 112.
  Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1330


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 112) establishing the budget 
for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, with 
Mr. Thornberry (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 112-423 offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) had been disposed of.


Amendment No. 6 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 112-423.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2013.

       (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 
     and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal year 2012 and for fiscal years 2014 through 
     2022.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

                        TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 201. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for job creation through 
              investments and incentives.
Sec. 202. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing energy 
              independence and market stability.
Sec. 203. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and 
              servicemembers.
Sec. 204. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicare improvement.
Sec. 205. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Transitional Medical 
              Assistance.
Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for initiatives that benefit 
              children.
Sec. 208. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Affordable Housing Trust 
              Fund.
Sec. 209. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for college affordability.
Sec. 210. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for additional tax relief for 
              individuals and families.

                   TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 302. Adjustments to discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 303. Costs of emergency needs, Overseas Contingency Operations and 
              disaster relief.
Sec. 304. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative 
              expenses.
Sec. 305. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 306. Reinstatement of pay-as-you-go.
Sec. 307. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                            TITLE IV--POLICY

Sec. 401. Policy of the House on jobs: Make it in America.
Sec. 402. Policy of the House on sequestration.
Sec. 403. Policy of the House on taking a balanced approach to deficit 
              reduction.
Sec. 404. Policy of the House on Social Security reform that protects 
              workers and retirees.
Sec. 405. Policy of the House on protecting the Medicare guarantee for 
              seniors.
Sec. 406. Policy of the House on affordable health care coverage for 
              working families.
Sec. 407. Policy of the House on Medicaid.
Sec. 408. Policy of the House on overseas contingency operations.
Sec. 409. Policy of the House on national security.
Sec. 410. Policy of the House on tax reform and deficit reduction.
Sec. 411. Policy of the House on agriculture spending.
Sec. 412. Policy of the House on the use of taxpayer funds.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2012 through 2022:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $1,836,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,064,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,336,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,604,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,800,259,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,962,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,092,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,234,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,411,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,586,187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,766,705,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: -$62,857,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$228,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$214,752,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$211,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$215,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$232,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$259,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$284,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$296,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$320,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$348,776,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,239,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,966,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,984,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,098,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,308,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,470,252,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,637,710,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,824,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,037,028,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,220,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,431,285,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $3,138,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,064,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,048,076,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,130,366,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,308,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,435,565,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,580,995,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,799,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,993,967,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,187,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,401,684,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: -$1,301,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: -$1,000,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: -$711,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$525,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$508,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$473,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$488,169,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$564,956,000,000.

[[Page 4521]]

       Fiscal year 2020: -$582,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$601,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$634,979,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $16,140,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $17,309,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $18,199,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,911,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,632,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $20,366,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $21,129,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,961,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $22,812,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $23,682,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $24,575,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2012: $11,424,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013: $12,498,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014: $13,290,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,894,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $14,477,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $15,023,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $15,578,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $16,210,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $16,871,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021; $17,565,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $18,311,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2012 through 2022 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $560,847,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $620,526,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $553,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $582,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $564,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $568,196,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $574,336,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $565,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $585,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,055,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $598,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $585,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $612,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $592,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $625,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $610,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $625,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $638,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $671,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $659,506,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,509,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,664,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,643,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,118,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,947,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,464,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,377,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,906,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,909,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,154,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,335,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,523,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,859,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,212,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,996,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,060,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,989,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,289,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,228,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,254,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,217,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,534,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,174,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,632,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,054,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,453,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,249,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,539,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,381,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,598,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,239,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,259,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,818,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,669,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,153,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,924,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,187,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,355,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,218,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,826,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,362,000,000.

[[Page 4522]]

       (B) Outlays, $1,288,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,413,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $10,253,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,026,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,421,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,841,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$272,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,869,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,043,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $138,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,157,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,347,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $109,043,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $109,419,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,750,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,940,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $129,482,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $118,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,622,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,692,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $109,896,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,295,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,984,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,875,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,976,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,510,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,152,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,690,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,643,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,101,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,505,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,846,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,143,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,758,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $160,479,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,462,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $125,288,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,217,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $101,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,681,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $108,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $108,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $109,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $109,494,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,236,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $110,714,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $355,177,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $356,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $370,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $373,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $470,873,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $460,817,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $543,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $538,690,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $592,964,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $596,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $638,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $640,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $676,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $674,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $719,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $718,169,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $773,137,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $761,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $813,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $812,132,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $869,217,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $867,542,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $492,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $491,887,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $515,143,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $514,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $543,057,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $542,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $567,752,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $567,344,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $616,689,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $616,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $633,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $633,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $655,457,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $655,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $716,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $716,548,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $768,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $767,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $819,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $818,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $898,877,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $898,790,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $556,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $555,592,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $537,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $536,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,630,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $499,737,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,971,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $498,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $507,526,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $509,143,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $505,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $502,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $507,370,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $500,732,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $522,471,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $520,539,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $534,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $532,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $547,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $545,756,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $564,766,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $568,249,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $145,379,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $145,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,216,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,029,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,135,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,953,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,140,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,590,000,000.

[[Page 4523]]

       (B) Outlays, $47,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,604,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,604,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,079,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $128,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $128,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $137,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $137,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $139,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $139,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $148,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $148,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $147,499,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $147,071,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $146,341,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $145,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,034,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $155,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $160,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,760,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $165,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,272,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $175,431,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,607,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,849,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,522,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,321,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,506,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,992,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,406,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,011,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,348,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,496,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,973,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,213,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,348,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,564,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,538,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,043,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,339,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,794,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,693,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,693,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $345,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $345,961,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $399,457,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $399,457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $464,949,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $464,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $535,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $535,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $608,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $608,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $678,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $678,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $740,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $740,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $790,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $790,661,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $841,746,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $841,746,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$18,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$17,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$14,638,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$23,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$21,738,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$25,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,035,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$26,716,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$25,864,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$28,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,864,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$37,461,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$31,399,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$33,094,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$74,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$75,270,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, -$76,687,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$76,687,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, -$75,736,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$75,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$77,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$77,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,531,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$93,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,507,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$97,066,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$97,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$103,845,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$103,845,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$102,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$102,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$107,168,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$107,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$109,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$109,655,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations (970):
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,725,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,766,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $28,845,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $9,173,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $2,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $52,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $38,000,000.

[[Page 4524]]

       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $24,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 201. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR JOB CREATION 
                   THROUGH INVESTMENTS AND INCENTIVES.

       In the House, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that provides for robust 
     Federal investments in America's infrastructure, incentives 
     for businesses, and support for communities or other measures 
     that create jobs for Americans and boost the economy. The 
     revisions may be made for measures that--
       (1) provide for additional investments in rail, aviation, 
     harbors (including harbor maintenance dredging), seaports, 
     inland waterway systems, public housing, broadband, energy, 
     water, and other infrastructure;
       (2) provide for additional investments in other areas that 
     would help businesses and other employers create new jobs; 
     and
       (3) provide additional incentives, including tax 
     incentives, to help small businesses, nonprofits, States, and 
     communities expand investment, train, hire, and retain 
     private-sector workers and public service employees;
      by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure does 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2017 or fiscal year 
     2012 to fiscal year 2022.

     SEC. 202. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASING ENERGY 
                   INDEPENDENCE AND MARKET STABILITY.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that--
       (1) provides tax incentives for or otherwise encourages the 
     production of renewable energy or increased energy 
     efficiency;
       (2) encourages investment in emerging clean energy or 
     vehicle technologies or carbon capture and sequestration;
       (3) provides additional resources for oversight and 
     expanded enforcement activities to crack down on speculation 
     in and manipulation of oil and gas markets, including 
     derivatives markets;
       (4) limits and provides for reductions in greenhouse gas 
     emissions;
       (5) assists businesses, industries, States, communities, 
     the environment, workers, or households as the United States 
     moves toward reducing and offsetting the impacts of 
     greenhouse gas emissions; or
       (6) facilitates the training of workers for these 
     industries (``clean energy jobs'');
     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2017 or fiscal year 
     2012 to fiscal year 2022.

     SEC. 203. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS 
                   AND SERVICEMEMBERS.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that--
       (1) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded 
     or disabled military personnel or veterans, including 
     measures to expedite the claims process;
       (2) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled 
     military retirees to receive both disability compensation and 
     retired pay (concurrent receipt); or
       (3) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan 
     annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity 
     compensation;
     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2017, or fiscal year 
     2012 to fiscal year 2022.

     SEC. 204. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE 
                   IMPROVEMENT.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that makes improvements to 
     Medicare, including making reforms to the Medicare payment 
     system for physicians that build on delivery reforms 
     underway, such as advancement of new care models, and--
       (1) changes incentives to encourage efficiency and higher 
     quality care in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal 
     sustainability;
       (2) improves payment accuracy to encourage efficient use of 
     resources and ensure that patient-centered primary care 
     receives appropriate compensation;
       (3) supports innovative programs to improve coordination of 
     care among all providers serving a patient in all appropriate 
     settings;
       (4) holds providers accountable for their utilization 
     patterns and quality of care; and
       (5) makes no changes that reduce benefits available to 
     seniors and individuals with disabilities in Medicare;

     by the amounts provided, together with any savings from 
     ending Overseas Contingency Operations, in such measure if 
     such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2017 
     or fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2022.

     SEC. 205. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSITIONAL 
                   MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that extends the Transitional 
     Medical Assistance program in title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act through fiscal year 2014, by the amounts 
     provided in such measure if such measure would not increase 
     the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal 
     year 2012 to fiscal year 2017 or fiscal year 2012 to fiscal 
     year 2022.

     SEC. 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INITIATIVES THAT 
                   BENEFIT CHILDREN.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that improves the lives of 
     children by the amounts provided in such measure if such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2017 
     or fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2022. Improvements may 
     include:
       (1) Extension and expansion of child care assistance.
       (2) Changes to foster care to prevent child abuse and 
     neglect and keep more children safely in their homes.
       (3) Changes to child support enforcement to encourage 
     increased parental support for children, particularly from 
     non-custodial parents, including legislation that results in 
     a greater share of collected child support reaching the child 
     or encourages States to provide access and visitation 
     services to improve fathers' relationships with their 
     children. Such changes could reflect efforts to ensure that 
     States have the necessary resources to collect all child 
     support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass 
     100 percent of support on to families without financial 
     penalty. When 100 percent of child support payments are 
     passed to the child, rather than administrative expenses, 
     program integrity is improved and child support participation 
     increases.

     SEC. 208. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE AFFORDABLE 
                   HOUSING TRUST FUND.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that capitalizes the existing 
     Affordable Housing Trust Fund by the amounts provided in such 
     measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2012 to 
     fiscal year 2017 or fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2022.

     SEC. 209. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COLLEGE 
                   AFFORDABILITY.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that makes college more 
     affordable, including efforts to keep the interest rate on 
     subsidized student loans from doubling in July 2013 at the 
     end of the one-year extension of the current 3.4 percent 
     interest rate assumed in the resolution, or efforts to ensure 
     continued full Pell grant funding, by the amounts provided in 
     such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit 
     for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2012 to 
     fiscal year 2017 or fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2022.

     SEC. 210. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX 
                   RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that provides additional tax 
     relief to individuals and families, such as expanding tax 
     relief provided by the refundable child credit, by the 
     amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods, fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2017 or fiscal year 
     2012 to fiscal year 2022.

                   TITLE III--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report making a general appropriation or 
     continuing appropriation may not provide for advance 
     appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided--
       (1) for fiscal year 2014 for programs, projects, 
     activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory 
     statement of managers to accompany this resolution under the 
     heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in 
     an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new 
     budget authority, and for 2015, accounts separately 
     identified under the same heading; and
       (2) for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Medical 
     Services, Medical Support

[[Page 4525]]

     and Compliance, and Medical Facilities accounts of the 
     Veterans Health Administration.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2013 that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2013.

     SEC. 302. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Program Integrity Initiatives Under the Budget Control 
     Act.--
       (1) Social security administration program integrity 
     initiatives.--In the House, prior to consideration of any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report 
     making appropriations for fiscal year 2013 that appropriates 
     amounts as provided under section 251(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall 
     be increased by the amount of additional budget authority and 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 
     2013.
       (2) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the 
     House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report making appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2013 that appropriates amounts as provided under 
     section 251(b)(2)(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, the allocation to the House 
     Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount 
     of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from 
     that budget authority for fiscal year 2013.
       (b) Additional Program Integrity Initiatives.--
       (1) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House, 
     prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report making appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2013 that appropriates $9,487,000,000 for the 
     Internal Revenue Service for enhanced enforcement to address 
     the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid) and provides an 
     additional appropriation of up to $691,000,000, to the 
     Internal Revenue Service and the amount is designated for 
     enhanced tax enforcement to address the tax gap, the 
     allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be 
     increased by the amount of additional budget authority and 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 
     2013.
       (2) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
     In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report making 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2013 that appropriates 
     $60,000,000 for in-person reemployment and eligibility 
     assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment 
     reviews for the Department of Labor and provides an 
     additional appropriation of up to $15,000,000, and the amount 
     is designated for in-person reemployment and eligibility 
     assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment 
     reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation to the 
     House Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the 
     amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting 
     from that budget authority for fiscal year 2013.
       (c) Procedure for Adjustments.--Prior to consideration of 
     any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, 
     the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall make 
     the adjustments set forth in this subsection for the 
     incremental new budget authority in that measure and the 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority if that measure 
     meets the requirements set forth in this section.

     SEC. 303. COSTS OF EMERGENCY NEEDS, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 
                   OPERATIONS AND DISASTER RELIEF.

       (a) Emergency Needs.--If any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for 
     discretionary amounts and such amounts are designated as 
     necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to this 
     subsection, then new budget authority and outlays resulting 
     from that budget authority shall not count for the purposes 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or this resolution.
       (b) Overseas Contingency Operations.--In the House, if any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013 for 
     overseas contingency operations and such amounts are so 
     designated pursuant to this paragraph, then the allocation to 
     the House Committee on Appropriations may be adjusted by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose up to 
     the amounts of budget authority specified in section 102(21) 
     for fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013 and the new outlays 
     resulting from that budget authority.
       (c) Disaster Relief.--In the House, if any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report makes 
     appropriations for discretionary amounts and such amounts are 
     designated for disaster relief pursuant to this subsection, 
     then the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations, and 
     as necessary, the aggregates in this resolution, shall be 
     adjusted by the amount of new budget authority and outlays up 
     to the amounts provided under section 251(b)(2)(D) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) Procedure for Adjustments.--Prior to consideration of 
     any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, 
     the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall make 
     the adjustments set forth in subsections (b) and (c) for the 
     incremental new budget authority in that measure and the 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority if that measure 
     meets the requirements set forth in this section.

     SEC. 304. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 
     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to the House Committee on Appropriations amounts 
     for the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration and of the Postal Service.
       (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying section 302(f) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the 
     level of total new budget authority and total outlays 
     provided by a measure shall include any off-budget 
     discretionary amounts.

     SEC. 305. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--In the House, any adjustments of 
     allocations and aggregates made pursuant to this resolution 
     shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Adjustments.--The chairman of the House Committee on 
     the Budget may adjust the aggregates, allocations, and other 
     levels in this resolution for legislation which has received 
     final congressional approval in the same form by the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, but has yet to be presented 
     to or signed by the President at the time of final 
     consideration of this resolution.

     SEC. 306. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

       In the House, and pursuant to section 301(b)(8) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the remainder of the 
     112th Congress, the following shall apply in lieu of 
     ``CUTGO'' rules and principles:
       (1)(A) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), it 
     shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such 
     measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net 
     effect of increasing the on-budget deficit or reducing the 
     on-budget surplus for the period comprising either--
       (i) the current year, the budget year, and the four years 
     following that budget year; or
       (ii) the current year, the budget year, and the nine years 
     following that budget year.
       (B) The effect of such measure on the deficit or surplus 
     shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (C) For the purpose of this section, the terms ``budget 
     year'', ``current year'', and ``direct spending'' have the 
     meanings specified in section 250 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, except that the term 
     ``direct spending'' shall also include provisions in 
     appropriation Acts that make outyear modifications to 
     substantive law as described in section 3(4) (C) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
       (2) If a bill, joint resolution, or amendment is considered 
     pursuant to a special order of the House directing the Clerk 
     to add as new matter at the end of such measure the 
     provisions of a separate measure as passed by the House, the 
     provisions of such separate measure as passed by the House 
     shall be included in the evaluation under paragraph (1) of 
     the bill, joint resolution, or amendment.
       (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     evaluation under paragraph (1) shall exclude a provision 
     expressly designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-
     you-go principles in the case of a point of order under this 
     clause against consideration of--
       (i) a bill or joint resolution;
       (ii) an amendment made in order as original text by a 
     special order of business;
       (iii) a conference report; or
       (iv) an amendment between the Houses.
       (B) In the case of an amendment (other than one specified 
     in subparagraph (A)) to a bill or joint resolution, the 
     evaluation under paragraph (1) shall give no cognizance to 
     any designation of emergency.
       (C) If a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment made in 
     order as original text by a special order of business, a 
     conference report, or an amendment between the Houses 
     includes

[[Page 4526]]

     a provision expressly designated as an emergency for purposes 
     of pay-as-you-go principles, the Chair shall put the question 
     of consideration with respect thereto.

     SEC. 307. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       The House adopts the provisions of this title--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and as such they shall be considered as part 
     of the rules of the House, and these rules shall supersede 
     other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent 
     with other such rules; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the House of Representatives to change those rules at any 
     time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the 
     case of any other rule of the House of Representatives.

                            TITLE IV--POLICY

     SEC. 401. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON JOBS: MAKE IT IN AMERICA.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the economy entered a deep recession in December 2007;
       (2) a financial crisis in 2008 worsened the situation and 
     by January 2009, the private sector was shedding 840,000 jobs 
     per month;
       (3) actions by the President, Congress, and the Federal 
     Reserve helped stem the crisis, and job creation resumed in 
     2010;
       (4) the economy has created 3.9 million private jobs over 
     the past 24 consecutive months;
       (5) as part of a ``Make it in America'' agenda, U.S. 
     manufacturing has been leading the Nation's economic recovery 
     as domestic manufacturers regain their economic and 
     competitive edge and a wave of insourcing jobs from abroad 
     begins;
       (6) despite the job gains already made, job growth needs to 
     accelerate and continue for an extended period of time in 
     order for the economy to fully recover from the recession; 
     and
       (7) job creation is vital to nation-building at home and to 
     deficit reduction--CBO has noted that if the country were at 
     full employment, the deficit would be about one-third lower 
     than it is today.
       (b) Policy.--
       (1) In general.--It is the policy of this resolution that 
     Congress should pursue a ``Make it in America'' agenda with a 
     priority to consider and enact legislation to help create 
     jobs, remove incentives to out-source jobs overseas, and 
     instead support incentives that bring jobs back to the U.S.
       (2) Jobs.--This resolution--
       (A) assumes enactment of--
       (i) the President's $50 billion immediate transportation 
     jobs package;
       (ii) other measures proposed in the American Jobs Act and 
     reflected in the President's budget; and
       (iii) the President's proposed surface transportation 
     legislation;
       (B) assumes $1 billion for the President's proposal to 
     establish a Veterans Job Corps;
       (C) assumes $80 billion in education jobs funding for the 
     President's initiatives to promote jobs now while also 
     creating an infrastructure that will help students learn and 
     create a better future workforce, including $30 billion for 
     rebuilding at least 35,000 public schools, $25 billion to 
     prevent hundreds of thousands of educator layoffs, and $8 
     billion to help community colleges train 2 million workers in 
     high-growth industries with skills that will lead directly to 
     jobs; and
       (D) establishes a reserve fund that would allow for passage 
     of additional job creation measures, including further 
     infrastructure improvements or other spending or revenue 
     proposals.

     SEC. 402. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SEQUESTRATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the Budget Control Act of 2011 called upon the Joint 
     Select Committee on Deficit Reduction and the Congress to 
     enact legislation to achieve $1.2 trillion in savings;
       (2) the Joint Select Committee could not reach agreement 
     and did not report savings legislation to the Congress;
       (3) failure to enact the required savings triggered 
     sequestration procedures as required under the Budget Control 
     Act; and
       (4) this resolution assumes the enactment of savings in 
     excess of $1.2 trillion, negating the need for sequestration 
     to achieve the savings.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that paragraphs 
     (3) through (11) of section 251A of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended by the Budget 
     Control Act of 2011, shall be repealed.

     SEC. 403. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAKING A BALANCED APPROACH 
                   TO DEFICIT REDUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the President's budget request and every bipartisan 
     analysis of the Nation's future fiscal path have recommended 
     deficit reduction through a balanced approach that includes 
     both spending and revenue; and
       (2) The President's choices represent the right general 
     balance of changes to spending and revenue.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution to reduce 
     the deficit through a similar balance of spending and revenue 
     changes. The resolution does not endorse any specific 
     spending cuts or revenue proposals unless they are expressly 
     stated in this resolution.

     SEC. 404. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM THAT 
                   PROTECTS WORKERS AND RETIREES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) Social Security is America's most important retirement 
     resource, especially for seniors, because it provides an 
     income floor to keep them, their spouses and their survivors 
     out of poverty during retirement benefits earned based on 
     their past payroll contributions;
       (2) in 2011, 55 million people relied on Social Security;
       (3) Social Security benefits are modest, with an average 
     annual benefit for retirees of less than $15,000, while the 
     average total retirement income is less than $26,000 per 
     year;
       (4) diverting workers' payroll contributions toward private 
     accounts undermines retirement security and the social safety 
     net by subjecting the workers' retirement decisions and 
     income to the whims of the stock market;
       (5) diverting trust fund payroll contributions toward 
     private accounts jeopardizes Social Security because the 
     program will not have the resources to pay full benefits to 
     current retirees; and
       (6) privatization increases Federal debt because the 
     Treasury will have to borrow additional funds from the public 
     to pay full benefits to current retirees.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that 
     Social Security should be strengthened for its own sake and 
     not to achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization 
     proposals are fiscally irresponsible and would put the 
     retirement security of seniors at risk, any Social Security 
     reform legislation shall reject partial or complete 
     privatization of the program.

     SEC. 405. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON PROTECTING THE MEDICARE 
                   GUARANTEE FOR SENIORS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) senior citizens and persons with disabilities highly 
     value the Medicare program and rely on Medicare to guarantee 
     their health and financial security;
       (2) in 2011, nearly 50 million people relied on Medicare 
     for coverage of hospital stays, physician visits, 
     prescription drugs, and other necessary medical goods and 
     services;
       (3) the Medicare program has lower administrative and 
     program costs than private insurance for a given level of 
     benefits;
       (4) excess health care cost growth is not unique to 
     Medicare or other Federal health programs, it is endemic to 
     the entire health care system;
       (5) destroying the Medicare program and replacing it with a 
     voucher or premium support for the purchase of private 
     insurance that fails to keep pace with growth in health costs 
     will expose seniors and persons with disabilities on fixed 
     incomes to unacceptable financial risks;
       (6) shifting excess health care cost growth onto Medicare 
     beneficiaries would not reduce overall health care costs, 
     instead it would mean beneficiaries would face higher 
     premiums, eroding coverage, or both; and
       (7) versions of voucher or premium-support policies that do 
     not immediately end the traditional Medicare program will 
     merely cause traditional Medicare to weaken and wither away.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the 
     Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities 
     should be preserved and strengthened, and that any 
     legislation to end the Medicare guarantee and shift rising 
     health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with 
     vouchers or premium support for the purchase of private 
     insurance should be rejected.

     SEC. 406. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE 
                   COVERAGE FOR WORKING FAMILIES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) making health care coverage affordable and accessible 
     for all American families will improve families' health and 
     economic security, which will make the economy stronger;
       (2) the Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010 will 
     expand coverage to more than 30,000,000 Americans and bring 
     costs down for families and small businesses;
       (3) consumers are already benefitting from the Affordable 
     Care Act's provisions to hold insurance companies accountable 
     for their actions and to end long-standing practices such as 
     denying coverage to children based on pre-existing 
     conditions, imposing lifetime limits on coverage that put 
     families at risk of bankruptcy in the event of serious 
     illness, and dropping an enrollee's coverage once the 
     enrollee becomes ill based on a simple mistake in the 
     enrollee's application;
       (4) the Affordable Care Act reforms Federal health 
     entitlements by using nearly every health cost-containment 
     provision experts recommend, including new incentives to 
     reward quality and coordination of care rather than simply 
     quantity of services provided, new tools to crack down on 
     fraud, and the elimination of excessive taxpayer subsidies to 
     private insurance plans, and as a result will slow the 
     projected annual growth rate of national health expenditures 
     by 0.3 percentage points after 2016, the essence of ``bending 
     the cost curve''; and
       (5) the Affordable Care Act will reduce the Federal deficit 
     by more than $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 20 years.

[[Page 4527]]

       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the law of 
     the land should support making affordable health care 
     coverage available to every American family, and therefore 
     the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed.

     SEC. 407. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICAID.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) Medicaid is a central component of the Nation's health 
     care safety net, providing health coverage to 28 million low-
     income children, 5 million senior citizens, 10 million people 
     with disabilities, and 14 million other low-income people who 
     would otherwise be unable to obtain health insurance;
       (2) senior citizens and people with disabilities account 
     for two-thirds of Medicaid program spending and consequently 
     would be at particular risk of losing access to important 
     health care assistance under any policy to sever the link 
     between Medicaid funding and the actual costs of providing 
     services to the currently eligible Medicaid population;
       (3) Medicaid pays for 43 percent of long-term care services 
     in the United States, providing a critical health care safety 
     net for senior citizens and people with disabilities facing 
     significant costs for long-term care; and
       (4) at least 70 percent of people over age 65 will likely 
     need long-term care services at some point in their lives.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the 
     important health care safety net for children, senior 
     citizens, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable 
     Americans provided by Medicaid should be preserved and should 
     not be dismantled by converting Medicaid into a block grant 
     that is incapable of responding to increased need that may 
     result from trends in health care costs or economic 
     conditions.

     SEC. 408. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 
                   OPERATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that it is the stated 
     position of the Administration that Afghan troops will take 
     the full lead for security operations in Afghanistan by the 
     end of 2014.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that 
     consistent with the Administration's stated position, no 
     funding shall be provided for operations in Afghanistan 
     through the Overseas Contingency Operations budget beyond 
     2014.

     SEC. 409. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) we must continue to support a strong military that is 
     second to none and the size and the structure of our military 
     and defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy;
       (2) a growing economy is the foundation of our security and 
     enables the country to provide the resources for a strong 
     military, sound homeland security agencies, and effective 
     diplomacy and international development;
       (3) because it puts our economy at risk, the Nation's debt 
     is an immense security threat to our country, just as former 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen has 
     stated, and we must have a deficit reduction plan that is 
     serious and realistic;
       (4) the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal 
     Responsibility and Reform and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici 
     Debt Reduction Task Force concluded that a serious and 
     balanced deficit reduction plan must put national security 
     programs on the table;
       (5) from 2001 to 2010, the ``base'' Pentagon budget nearly 
     doubled and, in 2010, the U.S. spent more on defense than the 
     next 17 countries combined (and more than half of the amount 
     spent by those 17 countries was from seven NATO countries and 
     four other close allies);
       (6) last year, Admiral Mullen argued that the permissive 
     budget environment had allowed the Pentagon to avoid 
     prioritizing;
       (7) more can be done to rein in wasteful spending at the 
     Nation's security agencies, including the Department of 
     Defense--the last department still unable to pass an audit--
     such as the elimination of duplicative programs that were 
     identified in a report issued last year by the Government 
     Accountability Office;
       (8) effective implementation of weapons acquisition reforms 
     at the Department of Defense can help control excessive cost 
     growth in the development of new weapons systems and help 
     ensure that weapons systems are delivered on time and in 
     adequate quantities to equip our servicemen and servicewomen;
       (9) the Department of Defense should continue to review 
     defense plans to ensure that weapons developed to counter 
     Cold War-era threats are not redundant and are applicable to 
     21st century threats, which should include, with the 
     participation of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration, examination of requirements for the nuclear 
     weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons delivery systems, and 
     nuclear weapons and infrastructure modernization;
       (10) more than 94 percent of the increase in the Federal 
     civilian workforce since 2001 is due to increases at 
     security-related agencies--Department of Defense (31 
     percent), Department of Homeland Security (32 percent), 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (26 percent), and Department 
     of Justice (6 percent)--and the increase, in part, represents 
     a transition to ensure civil servants, as opposed to private 
     contractors, are performing inherently governmental work and 
     an increase to a long-depleted acquisition and auditing 
     workforce at the Pentagon to ensure effective management of 
     weapons systems programs, to eliminate the use of contractors 
     to oversee other contractors, and to prevent waste, fraud, 
     and abuse;
       (11) proposals to implement an indiscriminate 10 percent 
     across-the-board cut to the Federal civilian workforce would 
     adversely affect security agencies, leaving them unable to 
     manage their total workforce, which includes contractors, and 
     their operations in a cost-effective manner;
       (12) ballistic missile defense technologies that are not 
     proven to work through adequate testing and that are not 
     operationally viable should not be deployed, and that no 
     funding should be provided for the research or development of 
     space-based interceptors;
       (13) cooperative threat reduction and other 
     nonproliferation programs (securing ``loose nukes'' and other 
     materials used in weapons of mass destruction), which were 
     highlighted as high priorities by the 9/11 Commission, need 
     to be funded at a level that is commensurate with the 
     evolving threat; and
       (14) the Department of Defense should make every effort to 
     investigate the national security benefits of energy 
     independence, including those that may be associated with 
     alternative energy sources and energy efficiency conversions.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that--
       (1) the sequester required by the Budget Control Act of 
     2011 should be rescinded and replaced by a deficit reduction 
     plan that is balanced, that makes smart spending cuts, that 
     requires everyone to pay their fair share, and that takes 
     into account a comprehensive national security strategy that 
     includes careful consideration of international, defense, 
     homeland security, and law enforcement programs; and
       (2) the Administration shall provide an additional bonus to 
     members of the Armed Forces who serve in harm's way. This 
     bonus shall be provided from savings that are achieved by 
     increasing efficiencies, eliminating duplicative programs, 
     and reining in waste, fraud, and abuse at the Nation's 
     security agencies.

     SEC. 410. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAX REFORM AND DEFICIT 
                   REDUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the House must pursue deficit reduction through reform 
     of the tax code, which contains numerous tax breaks for 
     special interests;
       (2) these special tax breaks can greatly complicate the 
     effort to administer the code and the taxpayer's ability to 
     fully comply with its terms, while also undermining our basic 
     sense of fairness;
       (3) the corporate income tax does include a number of 
     incentives that help spur economic growth and innovation, 
     such as extending the research and development credit and 
     clean energy incentives;
       (4) but tax breaks for special interests can also distort 
     economic incentives for businesses and consumers and 
     encourage businesses to ship American jobs and capital 
     overseas for tax purposes; and
       (5) the President's National Commission on Fiscal 
     Responsibility and Reform observed that the corporate income 
     tax is riddled with special interest tax breaks and 
     subsidies, is badly in need of reform, and it proposed to 
     streamline the code, capturing some of the savings in the 
     process, to achieve deficit reduction in a more balanced way.
       (b) Policy.--
       (1) Policy on individual income taxes.--
       (A) The President and this resolution extend the middle 
     class tax cuts, provide long-term relief from the Alternative 
     Minimum Tax for tens of millions of middle class American 
     families, and discontinue the additional estate tax relief 
     resulting from the increased estate tax exemption and reduced 
     maximum tax rate enacted in 2010.
       (B) The President and this resolution assume the revenue 
     from returning to the top two tax rates that were in effect 
     when President Clinton left office. The National Commission 
     on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform plan also assumes the 
     revenue from returning to those top two tax rates for top 
     earners.
       (C) The President and this resolution extend policies that 
     re-invest in domestic manufacturing; build up the renewable 
     energy production capacity of the United States in order to 
     limit our reliance on foreign oil; expand access to higher 
     education; and support saving and capital formation.
       (D) This resolution encourages the House Committee on Ways 
     and Means to consider the various proposals made by the 
     National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to 
     limit tax expenditures and raise revenue for deficit 
     reduction; and expressly rejects the approach in the 
     Republican resolution that provides millionaires with even 
     larger tax cuts at the expense of middle-income taxpayers. 
     This resolution protects middle-income taxpayers with 
     adjusted gross incomes below $200,000 ($250,000 for married 
     couples) and encourages the House Committee on Ways and Means 
     to raise the revenue necessary in this resolution through tax 
     expenditure reform proposals that would apply to households 
     with over $1 million in adjusted gross income, consistent 
     with the

[[Page 4528]]

     National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform's 
     proposals to limit tax expenditures.
       (E) In particular, this resolution encourages the House 
     Committee on Ways and Means to consider various proposals for 
     implementing a ``Buffett Rule''--reflecting billionaire 
     investor Warren Buffett's realization that he faces a lower 
     effective tax rate than his secretary--to ensure that middle 
     class families do not face higher effective tax rates than 
     the wealthiest members of society.
       (2) Policy on corporate income taxes.--
       (A) The President and this resolution propose elimination 
     of subsidies for the major integrated oil and gas companies, 
     and pernicious tax breaks that reward U.S. corporations that 
     ship American jobs--rather than products--overseas for tax 
     purposes.
       (B) This resolution adopts those and other pro-growth 
     corporate tax incentives in the President's proposals, such 
     as: enhancing incentives for domestic manufacturing to 
     support a ``Make it in America'' agenda, including providing 
     a tax credit for companies that return operations and jobs to 
     the U.S. while eliminating tax breaks for companies that move 
     operations and jobs overseas; closing loopholes that allow 
     businesses to avoid taxes, by subjecting more of their 
     foreign earnings sheltered in tax havens to U.S. taxation; 
     extending the research and development credit; and extending 
     and enhancing clean energy incentives.
       (C) This resolution therefore urges the House Committee on 
     Ways and Means to consider the President's framework for 
     business tax reform in determining how to best overhaul our 
     corporate tax code so that it promotes economic growth and 
     domestic job creation without increasing the deficit and the 
     debt.

     SEC. 411. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AGRICULTURE SPENDING.

       It is the policy of this resolution that the House 
     Committee on Agriculture should reduce spending in farm 
     programs that provide direct payments to producers even in 
     robust markets and in times of bumper yields. The committee 
     should also find ways to focus assistance away from wealthy 
     agribusinesses and toward struggling family farmers in a 
     manner that protects jobs and economic growth while 
     preserving the farm and nutrition safety net. Finally, it is 
     the policy of this resolution that no Member of Congress 
     should personally receive agriculture commodity payments, in 
     any calendar year, the total of which exceeds 15 percent of 
     the annual rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, 
     as of January 1 of such calendar year.

     SEC. 412. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON THE USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS.

        It is the policy of this resolution that the House of 
     Representatives should lead by example and identify any 
     savings that can be achieved through greater productivity and 
     efficiency gains in the operation and maintenance of House 
     services and resources like printing, conferences, utilities, 
     telecommunications, furniture, grounds maintenance, postage, 
     and rent. This should include a review of policies and 
     procedures for acquisition of goods and services to eliminate 
     any unnecessary spending. The Committee on House 
     Administration shall review the policies pertaining to the 
     services provided to Members of Congress and House 
     Committees, and shall identify ways to reduce any subsidies 
     paid for the operation of the House gym, Barber shop, Salon, 
     and the House dining room. Further, it is the policy of this 
     resolution that no taxpayer funds may be used to purchase 
     first class airfare or to lease corporate jets for Members of 
     Congress.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution 
     setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2013 and including the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal year 2012 and fiscal years 2014 
     through 2022.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 423, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We're here at a very important time for our country. As a result of 
extraordinary actions that have been taken over the last 4 years, and 
thanks to the tenacity of the American people and small businesses, we 
have begun to climb out of a big economic hole.
  If you look at this chart right here, you'll see where we were back 
in January 2009, the first month President Obama was sworn in and took 
office. At that time, the economy was in total free fall. As a result 
of actions that were taken, we've begun to climb out of that hole and 
now we've had 24 months--consecutive months--of positive private sector 
job growth, creating about 4 million jobs in the economy.
  We need to keep that job growth going, and that's what the Democratic 
alternative does. It builds on the President's proposals.
  In here, we have the President's jobs plan--a plan which has been 
sitting in front of this body since he introduced it back in September. 
We took some action on the payroll tax cut. That was good. But the 
President has also called for a major infrastructure investment to 
modernize our roads and our bridges. We fund that plan, as opposed to 
the Republican budget which, as we've heard, slashes transportation--in 
fact, next year by 46 percent in spending--and which independent 
analysts have said will cost the economy 1.3 million jobs in 2013 and 
2.8 million jobs in 2014. That is not the direction we should be going.
  We need to nurture the fragile economy. We need to deal with our 
budget deficits in a credible way, which this does. It takes us from 
deficits over 8\1/2\ percent of GDP down to under 3 percent of GDP by 
2015, and sustains them. And we do it in a balanced way by asking for 
shared responsibility.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the distinguished gentleman and my friend from 
Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic substitute because 
the House Republican budget harms middle class families throughout our 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, under the House Republican budget, Medicare is turned 
from a guaranteed benefit program into a bait-and-switch scheme where 
millionaires get more and seniors have to pay more.
  Under the House Republican budget, if you're a millionaire, you get 
an additional $394,000 tax cut. If you're an oil company, you get a 
bigger tax break. If you're a company that outsources jobs, you get a 
deeper tax break. But if you're a senior, you get as much as a $6,000 
increase in your medical costs. You get a bill from the Federal 
Government for your additional Medicare costs. If you're the child of a 
middle class family trying to go to college, you get an additional 
$2,800 tuition increase.
  The middle class has always been the backbone of the American 
economy, Mr. Chairman, and the House Republican budget kicks the middle 
class in the stomach.
  The Democratic budget invests in education; the House Republican 
budget divests from education. The Democratic budget invests in our 
children; the Republican budget divests from our children. The 
Democratic budget invests in America's future; the House Republican 
budget divests from America's future.
  And that is why we should pass this Democratic substitute, which 
invests and grows and strengthens the middle class, and quit investing 
in and growing and strengthening tax cuts for Big Oil companies and 
corporations that offshore our jobs.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute 
to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and let me say 
thanks to Chairman Ryan and members of the Budget Committee for a job 
well done.
  This is a tough process, making real decisions about our path for the 
future. The interesting thing I've found about this debate that's gone 
on the last 2 days is that our team actually went and made the tough 
choices--made the tough choices to preserve freedom in America and to 
deal with our fiscal nightmare.
  If you look at all the proposals we've seen in this debate, it's all 
more of the same. There are two things that are prevalent: let's raise 
taxes on the American people once again; and, secondly, let's kick the 
can down the road as if no one knows that Social Security, Medicare, 
and Medicaid are going broke. Oh, yes, all these proposals we've seen 
continue to kick the can down the road.

[[Page 4529]]

  I think that the Path to Prosperity that Chairman Ryan and his 
committee have put together is a blueprint for America's future. We all 
know that we've got some $16 trillion worth of debt already--$1.3 
trillion in a budget deficit this year alone. The American people know 
that they have got to live within their means; they have got to do a 
budget. They also know that you can't continue to spend money that you 
don't have.
  And so I applaud my colleagues for the tough decisions they've made 
to try to do the right thing for the country and to lay out a real 
vision of what we were to do if we get more control here in this town. 
This is still a Democrat-run town.
  The saddest thing I've seen, though, when it comes to a budget, is 
that while we did a budget last year--we're doing another budget this 
year, we're making tough decisions to help preserve Social Security and 
preserve Medicare--it has been 1,065 since the United States Senate has 
passed a budget. That's 1,065 days. Almost 3 years since they've had 
the courage to show the American people what their solutions are.
  I think it's high time that we're serious about solving America's 
fiscal problems. The first step is actually doing a budget.
  So, on behalf of my Republican colleagues, I would suggest that we 
support the Ryan budget. It's a real pathway to prosperity. It makes 
the tough decisions and puts us on a course that's sustainable, not 
just for our generation, but for our kids and grandkids.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I have great respect for the Speaker. I would just 
suggest that he may call it a tough choice to provide and lock in 
another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while cutting 
Medicaid by $800 billion, a full one-third, by the year 2022. Two-
thirds of that money goes to seniors in nursing homes and disabled 
individuals. I don't know if it's a tough choice. It's certainly the 
wrong choice. And that's what this debate is all about. It's not about 
whether we reduce our deficits, but how.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the 
Democratic Caucus, Mr. Larson.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, let me rise and commend the 
efforts of Chris Van Hollen and the Budget Committee and rise in full 
support of their balanced and fair document that emphasizes shared 
sacrifice. Let me say to my Republican colleagues that this appears to 
us much like that great philosopher Lawrence Berra said, ``deja vu all 
over again.''
  Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in another difficult period of our 
history, said that we need to prevail upon this country to come 
together and find the warm courage of national unity that comes from 
shared sacrifice that would again demonstrate to the American people, 
especially the most frail amongst us and those in the middle class who 
are impacted the most, that we have national unity because we have 
guaranteed that no longer will they be in a position where they have to 
suffer while others would use government in a way to prosper and grow 
at the expense of the middle class.
  There isn't a Member of this Chamber who doesn't have friends or 
family who aren't affected by the altering of Medicare, Social 
Security, or Medicaid. These are the tough decisions that are made 
every single day across the dinner table.
  This fragile recovery impacts the most fragile amongst us and also is 
tearing asunder the very middle class that we seek to provide with the 
guarantee--the guarantee of a social safety net that provides them with 
Social Security, Medicare and, yes, health care, as well. That is why 
the Democrats have offered an alternative plan that underscores our 
convictions and our belief in Social Security, Medicare, and affordable 
health care.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Budget Committee. He's done a fantastic job.
  And to the gentleman from Maryland, I know it's been difficult this 
week, you've stood in a difficult position, and now you're presenting 
your budget, and you've been in opposition to many of the budgets put 
forward, including the President's last night, and I know it's tough.
  What we're addressing here right now, Mr. Chairman, I think, is a lot 
of numbers, a lot of charts and a lot of rhetoric. We hear that. But 
what we know is that Washington has not been forthright with the 
American people. For far too long, the top has been getting the 
bailout, the bottom has been getting a handout, and now who's going to 
get stuck with the bill? It's our kids. That's who's going to get stuck 
with the bill.
  So why can't we, for once, instead of looking at the charts and 
numbers and throwing it all out there, just look through the lens of 
how will this budget impact our children and their future, their 
opportunity and their prosperity? Is this a budget that presents equal 
outcomes? Or is it going to be one that presents equal opportunities? 
Can we not look through that lens, for once, Mr. Chairman?
  I would say that the budget that the gentleman has put forward is one 
more about equal outcomes. It's more taxes, it's more government, and 
it's more government solutions. Do you know what? Why don't we provide 
more opportunities and more prosperity for the children of the next 
generation? That's the lens that I believe we should be looking 
through.
  And this is why: because whether we believe it or not, whether we're 
willing to recognize it, we are scribes of time right now. History is 
being written based on the discussions, the outcome and the debate that 
we have. We are the ones who are determining what history will reflect 
back on and say we did at this time and what the future exists like 
later. What will we choose? What will we write? Will this be the 
chapter that concludes with the words ``the end,'' or will we write a 
chapter that we can turn the page and hand the pens off to the next 
generation?
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we take our pen and that we pass it 
to the next generation, that we can turn the page, that we can move 
forward, and that we can provide a new chapter and a new beginning, one 
that is a beginning that leads to another future of opportunity and 
prosperity. I believe that only happens if we pass the Republican 
budget that we have before us today.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I do think the focus should be on our 
children and on the future, and that's why our budget does not do some 
of the things the Republican budget does do, which is, for example, say 
that kids who have preexisting conditions, whether it's diabetes or 
asthma, get insurance. We make sure that those kids can't be excluded 
because of preexisting conditions. They don't. We make sure that the 
interest rates on student loans don't double this July, as their budget 
would allow, because we think it's important that those students have 
an opportunity to get the education to get ahead and succeed.
  So I hope we will continue to focus on that question as we debate the 
choices that are being made in this budget.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, a member of the 
Budget Committee, Mr. Yarmuth.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend from Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, a recent analysis of American tax returns showed that 
in 2010, the top 1 percent of earners in the United States earned $288 
billion more than they had in 2009--$288 billion more, the top 1 
percent. In fact, that was 93 percent of all the additional income 
earned in the entire United States from year to year, 2009 to 2010.
  Now, apparently, my friends on the Republican side were outraged that 
7 percent of the additional income could slip away to the other 99 
percent of American families because they came up with a budget that 
tried to rectify that immediately. I call it the ``Republican 1 percent 
budget.'' It's a gift basket for billionaires and millionaires. It 
contains a permanent extension of the

[[Page 4530]]

Bush tax cuts, which have created an income gap in this country on par 
with Cameroon and Rwanda.
  But the ``Republican 1 percent budget'' doesn't stop there. It gives 
an additional tax break of $150,000 a year for everyone making more 
than $1 million a year. And it does that by dismantling Medicare, 
slashing education funding, transportation, and things like the SNAP 
program which help so many needy families in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, income inequality has become the central tenet of 
Republican ideology. The budget we will probably vote on later makes 
their commitment to widening the income gap abundantly clear. That's 
why I call the Republican budget, in addition to the ``1 percent 
budget,'' this is the ``all for 1 budget.'' It's a budget that's all 
for the 1 percent.
  By contrast, the Democratic budget, the resolution we are offering 
now, is really the ``one for all budget,'' one budget that provides 
benefits for all Americans. It makes the critical investments that we 
need to make sure all Americans have equal opportunity and equal tools 
to realize the American Dream, and it makes sure that all contribute to 
the deficit reduction that we all are committed to. Everybody plays a 
part; everybody does their share.
  I support the Democratic budget and urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Hampshire, a member of the Budget Committee, 
Mr. Guinta.
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on 
this substitute amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I find what's going on in this country with the level 
of spending in America outrageous. People in this country have sent us 
here to do a job, to be leaders, and to solve problems. We have a 
current deficit of roughly $1.3 trillion, something that is so high 
that so many people can't even comprehend that number. We have a long-
term debt approaching $16 trillion.
  This substitute today continues that path of spending money that we 
simply don't have. I do thank the gentleman for at least offering a 
proposal--something that has not been done in the Senate--so we can 
debate in, I think, a reasonable way what the path is that his budget 
would propose versus the Path to Prosperity.
  This proposal, the substitute proposal, does three things. Number 
one, it spends $3.7 trillion of roughly $1 trillion-ongoing deficits. 
Secondly, over the 10-year window, it spends $44.7 trillion, continuing 
the long-term debt that we have found ourselves in currently. Finally, 
it doesn't solve the significant drivers of our debt, and it doesn't 
allow for an opportunity to preserve and protect Medicare, Medicaid, 
and Social Security.
  The country wants us to be honest, the country wants leadership, and 
we continue to provide that in the House Budget Committee with the Path 
to Prosperity. I remind people that budget proposes stability and 
predictability by cutting $5.3 trillion in spending, by reducing the 
tax on both individual and corporate to give us a fair, level playing 
field and predictability for the long term. And it reduces our short-
term deficit about $700 billion next year and continues to ensure we 
get on a path to balance. A balanced budget is the dream of every 
American, and we offer that opportunity in the Path to Prosperity.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. At this point I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I will yield 2 
minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, in light of this week's Supreme Court 
arguments on the health care law, I'd like to take a moment to talk 
about the contrast between our Path to Prosperity budget and the broken 
promises of that law.
  As we've heard from so many of my colleagues in the last couple of 
days, we are on the verge of a debt crisis. I don't think any of us can 
argue that. And this health care law, with a total price tag of $1.76 
trillion, would surely drive us over that cliff faster. Now, that is 
why, in the Path to Prosperity budget, we repeal the entire health care 
law, including the very dangerous IPAB, which would slash physician 
payment rates, forcing doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. This 
15-member, unelected board makes senior care even harder to access and 
puts bureaucrats between patients and their doctors.
  Our plan for Medicare offers a choice for seniors, and they deserve a 
choice. We increase the competition between a guaranteed coverage 
option--and I want to repeat that, that this is a guaranteed coverage 
option--and traditional Medicare, and it allows seniors to choose. All 
of this would lower costs of the program while increasing the quality 
of care. This is the choice of two futures, both for our health care 
system and also the prosperity of our Nation.
  Now, we can continue to go down the path of ObamaCare, where we see 
$1.76 trillion in spending over 10 years. We also see $525 billion in 
new taxes, fees, and penalties on families and small businesses. Or, we 
can repeal this law and put in place policies that increase 
competition, decrease costs, and ensure that our health care system is 
patient-focused.
  We can continue to explode the size and scope of the Federal 
Government, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like. 
If Democrats had their way, their budget would tax more, borrow more, 
spend more, and waste more of the hardworking taxpayer dollars.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. BLACK. I find it interesting that last night this Chamber 
unanimously rejected the President's 2013 budget that would be an 
absolute fiscal disaster. And yet this budget before us today again 
doubles down on those failed policies of the past. The American people 
are sick and tired of Washington's culture of spend, spend, spend 
because they know there are consequences of living without a budget and 
spending more than what we take in.
  What we're doing here today is being honest with the American people. 
We are here to cut spending, reform programs in order to save them, and 
we make government smaller and less intrusive.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I'm glad the gentlelady brought up the issue of health care and how 
these budgets impact health care.
  She described their proposal as giving seniors a choice. It's 
interesting that they would give seniors on Medicare a choice that they 
don't want themselves to have, that they give Members of Congress a 
much better deal in health care than they would give to seniors on 
Medicare.
  Here's what their budget would do in ending the Medicare guarantee. 
This blue line shows the current level of support Medicare 
beneficiaries get from the Medicare program, up around 90 percent. That 
green line right there, that's the level of support Members of Congress 
get from the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. You can see it's 
steady; as costs go up, the support goes up proportionally. The 
Republican plan, that red line, is the one for seniors. That takes 
support steadily down relative to rising health care costs so that 
seniors would have to eat those rising health care costs. They bear the 
risk. That is a bad plan for American seniors. It's a bad plan for 
America.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who has 
focused a lot on these issues as a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Neal.
  Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen.

[[Page 4531]]

  What's striking about the debate that we're having today and this 
discussion is that essentially our Republican friends and colleagues 
are asking us to go back to the policies that got us here in the first 
place, the folly of those 6 years when they controlled the Presidency, 
when they controlled the Senate, and when they controlled the House of 
Representatives. So let me reacquaint all with their number forecast.
  They offered $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts in 2001, and then came 
back in 2003 and said that wasn't enough; let's cut taxes by another 
trillion dollars. The underlying argument that they offered at the time 
was that this would jump-start growth, despite the fact that as we came 
off the Clinton years with the greatest spurt of economic growth in the 
history of the world--a budget that was balanced for 4 successive years 
and 22 million jobs--their argument was: We can outdo that growth if we 
simply cut taxes by $2.3 trillion--and, incidentally, not for the 
middle class. These tax cuts overwhelmingly went to people in the 1 
percentile. Remember the theory that tax cuts pay for themselves?
  So, let's contrast January 19, 2001 with the end of the Bush years--
$15 trillion worth of debt, deficits as far as the eye could see, all 
under the guise of economic growth. So, let me give you a number--not 
an opinion, but a fact. Those 8 years offered the most anemic economic 
growth at any time since Herbert Hoover was President of the United 
States. And what they ask for today in this budget is to have bigger 
tax cuts for wealthy people and eviscerate the guarantee of Medicare.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NEAL. This is the party, on the Republican side, that tried to 
privatize Social Security during those years, and all they want to do 
is shoehorn these legislative proposals into tax cuts for wealthy 
people. Their argument today, despite these record deficits, is, with 
revenue at 14.7 percent of GDP--headed toward the Eisenhower years--
when the town has argued for years about revenue being between 19 and 
21 percent, they're going to cut Medicare to give tax cuts for wealthy 
people.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, before we had a chance to vote 
on the President's budget, I received a copy of a press release from 
the White House. It encouraged the House Democratic leadership to vote 
for this amendment. It encouraged the Democrats in the House to vote 
for the Van Hollen amendment, which I just thought was worthy of 
getting up and talking about, very briefly.
  It makes me wonder why the President didn't send a press release 
asking his Democrat colleagues to vote for his budget. It makes me 
wonder what the President is thinking. Does he like the Van Hollen 
budget better than his own budget? I mean, I guess there are some 
things to like. The President's budget raised taxes by $1.9 trillion; 
the Van Hollen budget only raises taxes by $1.7 trillion. The 
President's budget raised spending by $1.5 trillion; the Van Hollen 
amendment only raises it by $900 billion.
  But it makes me wonder where the President is. Does the President 
think that his budget that he offered just a month ago raises taxes too 
much, raises spending too much? Is it too big of a tax-and-spend 
document, now he wants a little bit less of a tax-and-spend document? I 
guess the reason he likes the Van Hollen budget is that it raises 
taxes, it raises spending, and it never balances. I guess those are the 
consistencies between the Van Hollen budget and the President's budget 
that we unanimously defeated last night 414-0. So I guess the President 
likes budgets that raises taxes, raise spending, and never balance.
  I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, as I have through this entire 
debate, that any balanced approach that does not end up in a balanced 
budget is no balance and is no budget. For that reason, I encourage us 
to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thought we were back to reality today 
instead of in the land of make-believe. Mr. Mulvaney offered an 
amendment yesterday that was not the President's budget. We debated 
that last night. I don't know why we're continuing that charade.

                              {time}  1400

  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There's been a lot of talk about kick the can down the road and kick 
the can down the road. I want to know what road that is?
  The road I know, the road that gave me the American Dream, was the 
road to an education that's being undercut by this budget. It's a road 
to medical security that my grandparents worked hard and struggled for 
to give me. So that's the road we're talking about.
  The other question I have is, What are we talking about? The budget 
offered by the Republicans kicks the can down the road all right, but 
that can is the middle class American.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  We have a lot of folks in the gallery today that have worked hard and 
saved money that they've earned to make their trip and to come here and 
listen to this debate. They understand that Santa Claus and a fairy 
tale is not going to pay for their transportation back. They get that. 
And they know that when they get back home, they're going to have to 
earn and work and find earned success if they want to bring their 
family back again. They get it. They get it. The American people get 
it.
  At no point in time have the American people had to do more with less 
and the Federal Government has done less with more.
  We hear a lot about fairness. True fairness does not come from wealth 
distribution. True fairness means rewarding merit, creating 
opportunity, and letting people rise. That has been a bedrock of the 
American system, the free enterprise system; and it is that free 
enterprise system that has given opportunity and rewarded people. And 
America has been benevolent with the gifts of being rewarded by hard 
work and honest dealings.
  The Democratic budget does not support that; yet the Ryan budget or 
the Path to Prosperity, the Republican budget, does.


                    Announcement By the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair reminds all Members not to refer to 
occupants of the gallery.
  The gentleman from Maryland has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Labrador).
  Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the other side speak 
about their budget, it takes me back to growing up in Puerto Rico as a 
young man. And I'm very privileged to represent the people of Idaho 
right now, but I grew up in a very poor neighborhood. I grew up in a 
very poor environment in Puerto Rico.
  I remember my mother taking me to the wealthier neighborhoods. And I 
remember her taking me to different places to the nicer stores, the 
nicer places in Puerto Rico and telling me that I had a choice, that I 
could work hard, I could play by the rules, I could do all the things I 
needed to do, and one day I could live in one of those homes, one day I 
could actually have those opportunities.
  But if my mother would have had the same mentality that the other 
side has, I would have never been able to amount to anything in my life 
because what they believe is that the only way you can actually amount 
to something is if you take from the ones who have, if you're a ``have-
not.''

[[Page 4532]]

  My mother never believed in that. She never said some day she will 
own a beautiful home, you will own a beautiful car, you will own a 
beautiful house if you take away from the rich. She always said that 
was up to you to become somebody in your life. And that's the mentality 
that the other side has.
  I have this chart here to show what really happened under the 
Democrats and the Republicans. If you see this, when the Democrats took 
control of Congress, we were at just under 5 percent unemployment. As 
soon as they took over Congress, and Barack Obama was elected, the 
unemployment rate went higher. And as soon as the Republicans were 
elected, the unemployment rate started going down. That's the path that 
we can have between the two parties.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to the budget 
offered by my colleague, Mr. Van Hollen.
  Then-Senator Obama, when campaigning for President, called President 
Bush unpatriotic for raising our national debt by $4 trillion in 8 
years, a figure he has surpassed in less than 4 years.
  When then-Senator Obama voted against a debt limit increase he said, 
Leadership means the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting 
the burden of bad choices today on to the backs of our children and 
grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. 
Americans deserve better.
  I agree with Senator Obama. If he believes this type of leadership 
was a failure and unpatriotic, then certainly so too should he think 
that about his budget and this budget here, for this budget would leave 
the U.S. with nearly $25 trillion of debt by the end of 2022, despite a 
massive tax increase of $1.7 trillion.
  And despite the increase, this budget does not balance within the 
next 10 years, the next 20 years, and not even in 75 years. We can't 
wait. We can't wait, Mr. Chairman. We can't wait to balance the budget 
for 75 years.
  Now more than ever, America needs leadership. As Senator Obama said, 
we cannot put the failures of today on the backs of the next 
generation. I agree, Senator Obama. So I reject this budget for the 
sake of our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my colleagues that 
at the end of the 8 years of the Bush administration, after the tax 
cuts, which helped create the deficits, we ended up losing over 600,000 
private sector jobs. That's the result of trickle-down economics.
  The last thing we want to do is go back to those policies. The 
Republican budget takes us back to our policies. We invest in jobs.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, 
who's been focused on jobs, Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I 
want to rise to sing the praises of our Democratic members on the House 
Budget Committee, led by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). 
Thank you for bringing us a balanced budget to the floor, a balanced 
option on how we go forward to the floor.
  Yes, we know we have to make cuts, and we have to increase revenue, 
but most of all, we have to increase jobs. Growth is what is important.
  And the difference between these two budgets, the budget that Mr. Van 
Hollen is proposing and the Ryan Republican budget, is that the Ryan 
Republican budget loses jobs. The Van Hollen budget, the Democratic 
budget, is a job-creator. It's a job-creator.
  It also invests in education. Think of it, if you're a student and 
you have a student loan, on July 1 your interest rate will double from 
3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The Ryan Republican budget says that's just 
fine. The House Democratic budget prevents that from happening.
  And if you're a senior, the Ryan budget takes you down a path where 
the Medicare guarantee is cut. You may have to spend $6,000 or more for 
less in terms of benefits.
  All the while, while not protecting our students, while not creating 
jobs, while not protecting our seniors and their Medicare, the Ryan 
budget gives an over $300,000 tax break to people making over $1 
million a year.
  How can that be? How can that be?
  The more people know about that budget, the more they know that it 
hurts them and their lives. The budget that is put forth by the House 
Democrats is a positive one for economic growth, for investing in our 
small businesses, for honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of America, 
for strengthening the middle class, for building ladders of opportunity 
for people who want to work hard, play by the rules, take 
responsibility for themselves to succeed as we re-ignite the American 
Dream.
  So I thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, for your leadership in putting a 
budget forth that is responsible, that honors our commitment to future 
generations, that reduces the deficit in a positive way, as opposed to 
Mr. Ryan's Republican budget. It doesn't even get to deficit reduction, 
ending that until close to 2040. I mean, the contrast could not be 
greater. The impact on America's families could not be greater.
  Just think, seniors pay $6,000 more for fewer benefits in Medicare, 
while they give a $300,000 tax cut to the wealthiest people in our 
country.

                              {time}  1410

  You be the judge. Is that a budget that is a statement of your 
values?
  Vote ``yes'' on the Van Hollen budget. Vote ``no'' on the Ryan 
Republican budget.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds 
remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Maryland wish to use his 
remaining 15 seconds?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes, I would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Again, our Democratic alternative invests in the President's jobs 
proposal, a proposal that has been sitting here in the House of 
Representatives since September.
  We reduced the deficit in a balanced and fair way. We make choices 
not to provide another tax break to the wealthiest but to say we need 
the combination of cuts and revenue, just like bipartisan commissions 
have done.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Let me just try to give, in a nutshell, the economic vision the 
minority leader just gave us. It kind of works like this:
  Take more money from communities, from families, from small 
businesses and send it to Washington; swish it around the bureaucracy; 
make the decisions here; then, through trickle-down government, try to 
create jobs from government; borrow more money if that's not enough; 
then print more money if that's not enough over at the Federal Reserve; 
and we can make jobs in government.
  It doesn't work. We've been trying this. Look at where we are today. 
Our debt is bigger than our economy. Look at the common theme we've 
seen before us. This budget, the House Democratic budget, has a $1.7 
trillion tax increase; the President's budget, a $2 trillion tax 
increase; the CBC budget, a $6 trillion tax increase; and least, but 
not last, the Progressive budget has a $6.7 trillion tax increase. Is 
that for deficit reduction? No. It's for more spending.
  The House Democratic budget has a $4.6 trillion spending increase; 
the CBC budget, a $5.2 trillion spending increase; the President's 
budget, a $5.2 trillion spending increase; and the Progressive Caucus 
Budget, a $6.6 trillion spending increase.
  It is clear, they want you taxed more so they can spend more, and 
they never, ever balance the budget and they send us off a debt cliff.
  This debt crisis is the most predictable crisis we've ever had in the 
history of this country, and we've got to stop this notion that we can 
just keep taking more and more and more from

[[Page 4533]]

families and businesses to spend us deeper into debt. It doesn't work.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the House Democratic substitute.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting CHAIR announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 262, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 150]

                               AYES--163

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--262

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Filner
     Jackson (IL)
     Mack
     Meeks
     Rangel
     Towns

                              {time}  1437

  Mr. FARR and Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 150, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to 
consider a final period of general debate, which shall not exceed 20 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member 
of the Committee on the Budget.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, let me just start off by 
thanking all of the staff and the minority and their staff for the hard 
work.
  I want to congratulate Mr. Van Hollen for bringing his substitute to 
the floor. The minority does not need to do that, and I think that it 
is good for the process and the system that they do that.
  In particular, I want to thank our Budget Committee staff: Alex 
Stoddard, Andy Morton, Austin Smythe, Charlotte Ivancic, Conor Sweeney, 
Courtney Reinhard, David Logan, Dennis Teti, Dick Magee, Eric Davis, 
Gerrit Lansing, Jane Lee, Jenna Spealman, Jim Herz, Jon Burks, Jon 
Romito, Jose Guillen, Justin Bogie, Marsha Douglas, Matt Hoffmann, 
Nicole Foltz, Paul Restuccia, Stephanie Parks, Steve Spruiell, Ted 
McCann, Tim Flynn, and Vanessa Day.
  I also want to thank our personal office staff and the people who are 
over there at the Ford Building that not everybody sees but who work 
for the Congressional Budget Office. I had the privilege to meet with 
them last December while they were busy putting the payroll tax numbers 
together.
  This year, the President's budget came late. Easter came early. 
Everyone was crunched. We worked them overtime, very hard. Now, we 
don't always like the estimates they necessarily give us, but I want to 
thank them for their dedication and their professionalism in making 
this process work.
  With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

                    Paul Ryan Personal Office Staff

       Allison Steil, Andy Speth, Chad Herbert, Danyell Tremmel, 
     Joyce Meyer, Kevin Seifert, Megan Wagner, Nathan Schacht, 
     Sarah Peer, Smythe Anderson, Susie Liston, Teresa Mora, 
     Tricia Stoneking, Lauren Schroeder, Casey Higgins, Aubrey 
     Yanzito, Rick Jacobson.

                               CBO Staff

       Adam Talaber, Adam Wilson, Adebayo Adedeji, Alan van der 
     Hilst, Alexandra L. Minicozzi, Allison Percy, Amber G. 
     Marcellino, Amy E. Petz, Andrea K. Noda, Andrew Stocking, Ann 
     Futrell, Anna E. Cook, Annette W. Kalicki, Athiphat 
     Muthitacharoen, Aurora K. Swanson, Avi Lerner, Barbara 
     Edwards, Barry Blom, Benjamin R. Page, Bernard C. Kempinski.

[[Page 4534]]

       Brianne B. Hutchinson, Bruce G. Arnold, Carla Tighe Murray, 
     Caryn Rotheim, Chad M. Chirico, Chad Shirley, Charles 
     Pineles-Mark, Charles Whalen, Chayim Rosito, Christi Hawley 
     Anthony, Christian K. Howlett, Christina Vu, Christine M. 
     Bogusz, Christopher Murphy, Christopher Williams, Christopher 
     Zogby, Courtney Griffith, Cynthia R. Cleveland, Damien Moore, 
     DaMischa Phillip.
       Daniel Frisk, Daniel S. Hoople, Darren Young, Dave Hull, 
     David A. Brauer, David Arthur, David Austin, David B. Newman, 
     David C. Gaffney, David D. Jackson, David E. Mosher, David 
     Rafferty, David Torregrosa, David Weiner, Dawn Sauter Regan, 
     Deborah A. Kalcevic, Deborah Kilroe, Deborah Lucas, Denise 
     Jordan-Williams, Doug Elmendorf, Dwayne Wright.
       Ed Harris, Edward (Sandy) Davis, Edward C. Blau, Elias 
     Leight, Elizabeth Bass, Elizabeth Cove Delisle, Ellen C. 
     Werble, Emily Holcombe, Eric J. Labs, Ernestine McNeil, 
     Ernestine McNeil, Esther Steinbock, Felix Reichling, Frances 
     M. Lussier, Francesca Castelli, Frank J. Sammartino, Frank S. 
     Russek, Gregory Acs, Gregory H. Hitz, Heidi Golding, Holly 
     Harvey, Jamease Miles.
       James A. Langley, James Baumgardner, James Johnson, Janet 
     F. Airis, Janet Holtzblatt, Janice M. Johnson, Jared 
     Brewster, Jason Wheelock, Jean P. Hearne, Jeanine Rees, Jeff 
     LaFave, Jeffrey Kling, Jeffrey M. Holland, Jennifer C. 
     Gravelle, Jennifer Smith, Jessica Deegan, Jessica S. Banthin, 
     Jimmy Jin, J'nell L. Blanco, Joanna (Jodi) Capps.
       Joe Miller, John H. Skeen III, Jonathan A. Huntley, 
     Jonathan A. Schwabish, Jonathan P. Morancy, Joseph Evans Jr., 
     Joseph Kile, Joshua Shakin, Joyce M. Manchester, Juan M. 
     Contreras, Juann H. Hung, Judith Cromwell, Julia M. 
     Christensen, Julia Mitchell, Julie H. Topoleski, Julie 
     Somers, Justin Humphrey, Justin R. Falk.
       Kalyani Parthasarathy, Kate Kelly, Kathleen FitzGerald, 
     Kathleen Gramp, Kent R. Christensen,Kevin Perese, Kim J. 
     Kowalewski, Kim P. Cawley, Kirstin B. Nelson, Kurt Seibert, 
     Lara E. Robillard, Larry Ozanne, Leah C. Mazade, Leigh S. 
     Angres, Leo K. Lex, Linda Bilheimer, Linda Schimmel, Lisa 
     Ramirez-Branum, Loretta Lettner, Lori B. Housman, Lyle 
     Nelson.
       Majid Moghaddam, Marika Santoro, Marin A. Randall, Marion 
     C. Curry, Mark Booth, Mark E. Sanford, Mark J. Lasky, Mark P. 
     Hadley, Mark T. Grabowicz, Martin von Gnechten, Mary M. 
     Froehlich, Matthew Goldberg, Matthew Pickford, Matthew 
     Schmit, Maureen Costantino, Megan E. Carroll, Melinda B. 
     Buntin, Melissa Merrell, Michael Bennett, Michael Levine, 
     Michael S. Simpson, Mitchell A. Remy, Molly W. Dahl, Monte 
     Ruffin.
       Nabeel A. Alsalam, Nancy A. Fahey, Natalie J. Tawil, Nathan 
     T. Musick, Noah P. Meyerson, Noelia J. Duchovny, Paige Piper/
     Bach, Pamela Greene, Patrice L. Gordon, Patrice L. Watson, 
     Paul Burnham, Paul Jacobs, Paul Masi, Paula D. Brown, Perry 
     C. Beider, Peter H. Fontaine, Philip C. Webre, Priscila 
     Hammett.
       R. Derek Trunkey, Rae Wiseman, Raymond J. Hall, Rebecca 
     Rockey, Rebecca V. Yip, Robert A. Sunshine, Robert G. 
     Shackleton Jr., Robert McClelland, Robert W. Arnold, Robert 
     W. Stewart, Rod Goodwin, Romain Parsad, Ron Gecan, Ronald L. 
     Moore, Ryan G. Miller.
       Sam Papenfuss, Santiago Vallinas, Sarah Ammar, Sarah 
     Anders, Sarah Jennings, Sarah Puro, Shane Beaulieu, Shannon 
     Mok, Sharon Broderick, Sharon Corbin-Jallow, Sheila Campbell, 
     Sheila M. Dacey, Sherry Snyder, Simone Thomas, Stephanie 
     Burns, Stephanie Cameron, Stephanie M. Ruiz, Stephen P. 
     Rentner, Steven A. Weinberg, Stuart A. Hagen, Sunita C. 
     D'Monte, Susan Willie, Susanne S. Mehlman.
       T.J. McGrath, Tamara Hayford, Terry M. Dinan, Theresa A. 
     Gullo, Thomas B. Bradley, Tiara P. MizeIle, Valentina 
     Michelangeli, Vi Nguyen, Virginia Myers, Wendy Edelberg, 
     Wendy Kiska, William J. Carrington, William Ma, William 
     Randolph.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking all the 
members of the Budget Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike. We 
had a very good debate in the Budget Committee. We had a good debate 
here on the floor. And I want to thank all our colleagues. We obviously 
have deep differences, but I think everybody conducted this debate in a 
civil manner.
  I also want to thank the chairman for the way he conducted the 
proceedings in the committee. And to all the staff, Republican and 
Democratic staff, I want to thank our team, headed by Tom Kahn. Many of 
them are here on the floor. As I think everybody knows, they've spent 
many, many, many late nights working on this budget. So I salute all of 
them as well as the folks over at the Congressional Budget Office.

                              {time}  1440

  We obviously think that this budget proposed by our Republican 
colleagues is the wrong choice for America.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, my 
friend, our colleague from the State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Ryan, who is an outstanding Member of this body and my friend, 
and who is one of the most able among us, as well as Mr. Van Hollen, 
who has been my close friend for many years and one of the most able 
among us, have just spent time thanking our staffs for the work that 
they have done. I share their view that our staffs have worked 
mightily. And, indeed, there has been much debate.
  Tragically, the product we will produce today is far less than the 
sum of our parts in this body. It is, I would suggest to you, a product 
unworthy of the intellect that has been applied to it. It is a product, 
indeed, that I think will hurt America, not help America. It is a 
product that is too much politics and too little policy. It is a 
product of which I think this House can not be proud.
  It is a product that relies on substantially undermining the security 
of seniors. I say that as one who has said repeatedly that in reaching 
a fiscally sustainable path we must deal with entitlements. We need to 
do so together, and we need to do so in a balanced way.
  But there is no balance in this proposal. Seniors, middle class, the 
vulnerable, and working Americans are asked to pay the price of this 
agreement. And, indeed, not only are they asked to pay the price, but 
the best off among us is asked to do the least.
  That's not the America of which we're all proud--that has worked 
together and sacrificed together at times, to come together to make a 
joint contribution to the welfare of this country.
  This product is less than the sum of its parts. This product would 
undermine the guarantee of Medicare.
  Again, we need to deal with entitlements, but not in a way, I tell my 
friends in this House, that undermines the guarantee of senior security 
as well as family security, so their children will know their parents 
are secure.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we had an agreement. I think that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin is an honorable man. He is my friend. I 
like Paul Ryan. But I am sorely disappointed, I tell my friend.
  We came to having a difference of opinion on what the number ought to 
be for this year's budget. You had a lower number. We had a higher 
number. We almost took the Nation to the brink--as a matter of fact, we 
took it to the brink--of default.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. We came to the brink of default in this great Nation, the 
most creditworthy Nation on the face of the Earth, and were downgraded 
as a result of failing to get to an agreement. But when we got to an 
agreement, it was an agreement. And if we are able to rely on one 
another's words, we ought to keep our agreements.
  It simply said that 302(a), which simply means, for the public, that 
the dollars we were going to spend on discretionary spending this 
fiscal year coming would be $1.47 trillion. That's a lot of money, no 
doubt about it. Your side didn't like it, my side didn't like it, but 
we agreed on it.
  That agreement is not carried out in this budget. How can we rely in 
the future on such an agreement? It asks seniors to pay the bill, the 
vulnerable to pay the bill, but not the wealthiest in America. It puts 
Medicare at risk and does not get us to where we want.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. In fact, it adds $10 trillion, and then some magical 
formula that's somewhere out there, like waste, fraud, and abuse, we're 
going to find the money to pay for the $10 trillion in tax cuts. That's 
by the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the 35 to 25. Some magical 
way, we're going to eliminate preference items. It doesn't say which 
ones. It doesn't say who's going to pay the bill.

[[Page 4535]]

  Ladies and gentlemen, we can do better. The parts in this body are 
very good on both sides of the aisle--good intellect, good instincts, 
and a love for this country. We can do better.
  Let's reject this budget. Let's do some real work. Let's come 
together and put this country on a fiscally sustainable path without 
harming our people.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes 
to our distinguished majority whip, Mr. McCarthy.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for the work that he's done, both sides.
  We've watched a lot of debate. This floor is supposed to be devised 
to have the power of the idea to win.
  Mr. Chairman, we watched the President's budget come here and, 
unfortunately, unite us when nobody thought that was the direction to 
go.
  We watched history be made on this floor for many years. It's always 
said that history repeats itself. In my short lifespan, if I'm really 
looking at where America stands, it stands much where we stood in 
1980--a choice between two futures.
  Have you ever thought for a moment the similarities of 1980 to today?
  In 1980, America was afraid that Japan was going to surpass us in our 
economy. Today, we have fear of China and India being larger.
  In 1980, Iran was holding Americans hostage. Today, they want to 
close the Strait of Hormuz. They want to develop missiles that hold the 
world hostage.
  We had an energy crisis. Today, the price of gasoline is the highest 
it's ever been.
  Every generation in America has been able to improve on the 
generation before it, but do you realize 1980 was the first time a 
majority of Americans believed the best days were behind us? 50.4 
percent. Today, it's at 74. We had a challenge in our foreign policy. 
We literally had a President put a sweater on and tell us to turn the 
heater down.
  Our biggest challenge is our debt that faces us.
  Well, today we have a choice, a choice of two futures, just as we did 
in 1980. So the choice today is: Do you want that European model; or do 
you want something that faces our challenge, honest to the American 
people, and rises to the occasion?
  When Ronald Reagan was sworn in at his inaugural, he said:

       Our willingness to believe in ourselves and our capacity to 
     perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's 
     help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront 
     us. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are 
     Americans.

  Winston Churchill once said of America:

       You can always count on them to do what's right after 
     they've exhausted every other option.

  We have exhausted every other option. This is an opportunity for a 
new path, for a new future.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to 
yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader of the House, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the House Republican budget 
resolution offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Chairman Paul Ryan.
  Mr. Chairman, people in this country are looking. They are desperate 
to see a strong signal from Washington that we are prepared to make the 
tough decisions necessary to address our Nation's fiscal crisis. Today, 
we will pass our budget that proposes real, honest solutions to create 
a stronger economy and a more certain future for our country.

                              {time}  1450

  Our budget takes bold steps that will get the fiscal house in order 
and will manage down the debt and deficit. It also strengthens the 
entitlement programs which are the biggest drivers of our debt. It 
reforms the Tax Code and prevents devastating defense cuts from taking 
place--all without raising taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, we are seizing the opportunity to address what even the 
minority has admitted is the most predictable economic crisis in our 
Nation's history. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, those on the other side 
of the aisle seem to refuse to be able to deal with this crisis and 
actually propose a solution.
  The Democratic-controlled Senate has failed to pass a budget in over 
1,000 days, shirking its responsibility to the American people. And the 
President has refused to put forth any serious solution to pay down the 
historic debt and deficit that he helped create. In fact, the 
President's budget will actually aggravate the Nation's problems. 
President Obama's budget saddles the American people with massive tax 
increases, puts more burden on job creators, weakens our military and 
fails to provide a plan to save our entitlement programs. I believe 
these policies will fundamentally change our Nation for the worse.
  In contrast, Mr. Chairman, our budget restores the system of free 
enterprise that has made America the greatest nation in the world. We 
propose a simpler, fairer, and more competitive Tax Code that will 
actually foster economic growth and job creation. Instead of picking 
winners and losers, our plan levels the playing field. Our budget 
lowers tax rates for taxpayers, broadens the base, and gets rid of 
loopholes and preferences so we can grow the economy and see more jobs 
created.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget seeks to save our entitlement programs 
because we actually produce a plan to solve the disproportionate cause 
of our deficits in health care entitlements.
  This commitment to lead, this commitment to find solutions and to 
actually put a plan in place is what has been missing from the debate 
in this town. And we ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
to join us in that commitment to actually adopt a plan so that we can 
begin to make progress and send a signal to the American people that we 
get it and that we are here to help solve the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, House Republicans are offering the American people a 
choice in terms of the direction this country will take. And I thank 
Chairman Ryan and the members of his Budget Committee for their hard 
work to produce this pro-growth, solutions-oriented budget. This 
document does begin to address the serious fiscal challenges we face 
and grow the economy so that our children have the same hope, 
opportunity, and ability to achieve success that our parents gave to us 
and their parents to them.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If I could ask how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank our colleagues for a vigorous debate, and I 
would remind everybody that just a few years ago when the President was 
sworn in, our economy was in a total free fall. The bottom was falling 
out, we had negative 8 percent GDP, and over 800,000 jobs were being 
lost every month. And as a result of extraordinary actions that were 
taken, along with the tenacity of the American people, we have climbed 
out of that hole that we inherited. We have now had 24 months of 
consecutive private-sector job growth. Let's keep that growth going.
  The budget that the President proposed, the budget that the Democrats 
proposed, did that. It expanded investments in jobs. The Republican 
budget will cut our investment in transportation next year by 46 
percent when we have 17 percent unemployment in the construction 
industry.
  Independent analysts have said that their budget will cost us 1 
million jobs this year and cost us 2 million jobs next year. That's not 
what we need. The Congressional Budget Office has said that over one-
third of our current deficit is because of underemployment. Why would 
we want to add to underemployment, as the Republican budget does?
  Now, in the long term, we've got to get our deficits under control. 
The issue is not whether we need to do that, the issue is how. As the 
previous speaker said, the question is the choice. Our

[[Page 4536]]

Republican colleagues overwhelmingly have signed this pledge saying 
they are not willing to close one tax loophole--not one penny--for the 
purpose of reducing the deficit. And when you say to folks making over 
$1 million a year, you don't have to share any more responsibility of 
reducing the deficit, when you say to big oil companies we're going to 
keep going with the taxpayer subsidies, do you know what? You've got to 
take out the budget on everybody else, at the expense of seniors, at 
the expense of middle-income taxpayers, and at the expense of important 
investments in our economy. And that's what their budget does. That's 
why it ends the Medicare guarantee.
  They're proposing to give seniors a deal that's a lot worse than we 
have for Members of Congress--worse than the one for Members of 
Congress, seniors on Medicare. They cut Medicaid by $800 billion, more 
than one-third of the program, by 2022, putting seniors and disabled 
individuals at risk. They cut education investments and would allow 
interest rates on student loans to double this July. Those are not 
decisions that we make if we want a strong economy and a robust future 
for our children and grandchildren.
  So this is all about choices, and we don't think that it's bold to 
provide tax breaks to millionaires while you're ending the Medicare 
guarantee for seniors. We don't think it's courageous to protect big 
taxpayer giveaways to companies that ship American jobs overseas while 
we're cutting investments in education, science, research, and 
infrastructure right here at home. We don't think it's fair to provide 
another round of taxcuts to folks at the very top. The Tax Policy 
Center says it's going to be close to $400,000 on average for people 
making over $1 million. We don't think it's fair to do that, financing 
those tax cuts by increasing taxes on middle-income Americans.
  I would challenge our colleagues: show us how you make up for $4.6 
trillion in lost revenue from dropping that tax rate without socking it 
to middle-income taxpayers? So far, Republican colleagues have been 
absolutely incapable of showing us that they're not shifting the burden 
to middle-income taxpayers.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is all about choices. Unfortunately, we didn't 
pass the alternative Democratic budget. Let's not make the mistake of 
passing this Republican budget plan. We can do better. We can do what 
bipartisan groups have done, take a balanced approach, cut spending and 
also cut the loopholes for special interests. Let's do it in a way that 
the American people would say brings us together, rather than apart.
  So I would urge rejection of this budget. It makes the wrong choice 
for America. I thank the chairman, and I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are bearing witness to history this week. Across the 
street, we are witnessing what could be the end of bureaucratic-
controlled health care. What we are on the verge of witnessing is a 
powerful reaffirmation of the American idea, and we are finally having 
the debate we need to have.
  Our rights come to us naturally, they come from God and nature, and 
not from government. This health care law is the latest and perfect 
example of the notion that government is now needed to grant us new 
rights. And if that is the case, then government has authority to 
ration, to regulate and to redistribute exactly how we exercise these 
new rights, such as health care. And if these new government-granted 
rights conflict with our constitutional rights and liberties, well, 
then, such is the sacrifice needed in the name of progress, or so the 
thinking goes.
  Across the street, we are witnessing what could be a rejection of 
this line of thinking. The new health care law, which asserts unlimited 
power to the Federal Government to decide for Americans how they should 
go about getting their health care, simply is not compatible with the 
Constitution.

                              {time}  1500

  But the Justices who are considering this case, they've raised a very 
good point: If this is, at the end, a bureaucrat control of health 
care, what comes next? And if you listen to them, you may hear a pretty 
dim view of Congress' ability to solve this problem.
  With respect, I would suggest that they take a look at what we are 
accomplishing here in this body today. Here, in this Chamber, we are 
witnessing the growing momentum of a new approach, one that maintains a 
critical role for government, but ultimately puts the American people 
in charge where they belong.
  For the second year in a row, we are passing a budget that outlines a 
new approach to Medicare. We keep the protections that made Medicare a 
guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years, but this is what 
we say to the bureaucrats who have mismanaged this program into 
bankruptcy: Enough. Your approach doesn't work. Government has never 
come up with the magic formula to micromanage America, let alone lower 
costs and improve quality. It's time to put 50 million seniors, not 15 
bureaucrats, in charge of their own health care decisions.
  Forcing insurance companies to compete, that's the only way to 
guarantee quality affordable health care for seniors that lasts for 
generations. That's the answer to what comes next. Let's keep building 
on the growing bipartisan consensus on how to improve patient-centered 
health care reform.
  But putting our trust in Americans, it goes beyond health care. It is 
what this entire budget is all about. We get government bureaucrats out 
of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy because 
Americans should make their own decisions about what kind of car they 
drive or what kind of light bulb they use. We give power over the 
safety net programs to the States because we believe that governments 
that are closest to the people are in the best position to design 
programs for their unique communities, to get people on to lives of 
self-sufficiency and upward mobility.
  When we lower tax rates by closing special interest loopholes, we're 
saying we in Washington don't need to micromanage people's decisions 
through the Tax Code. Let people keep more of their own hard-earned 
dollars; let them decide how to spend it. Economic growth, jobs, upward 
mobility, opportunity, these are what we're striving for, just like our 
parents did the same for us.
  Mr. Chairman, it is so rare in American politics to arrive at a 
moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of 
American democracy and the social contract, but that is exactly where 
we are today. One approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, 
takes more from hardworking taxpayers to fuel the expansion of 
government, and commits our Nation to a future of debt and decline. 
This approach is proving unworkable in Congress, in our courts, and in 
our communities.
  This contrast with our budget could not become clearer: We put our 
trust in citizens, not in the government. Our budget returns power to 
individuals, to families, to communities.
  As these choices become clear, today's budget is a vote of confidence 
for the American experiment. We think that putting our trust in the 
American people will renew their trust in us. We think Americans should 
control their destinies, and we trust them to make the right choices 
about the future of our country.
  Mr. Chairman, we think America is on the wrong track. We believe the 
President is bringing us toward a debt crisis and a welfare state in 
decline. We are offering the Nation a choice. We are offering the 
Nation a better way forward. And we are offering the Nation a plan to 
renew America and the American idea.
  Mr. Chairman, let's have that vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my opposition 
to the House Republican budget which ends Medicare guarantees while 
giving huge tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. As they have 
done countless times over the past three decades, the House Republicans 
are siding with millionaires and billionaires, while making life more 
difficult for seniors, students, and working people and

[[Page 4537]]

families. To fund an average tax cut of $400,000 per year for people 
making more than $1 million annually, they would take away the Medicare 
guarantee and the Affordable Care Act's provisions to close the donut 
hole and for free preventive care; destroy more than 4 million jobs 
through 2014; and cut funding for Pell Grants, K-12 education and Head 
Start. Instead of continuing with 30 years of failed trickle-down 
economic policy, we should be investing in our infrastructure, 
education and research--we need to pass the President's budget for our 
country's long-term economic health and to renew the American Dream for 
our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I will vote today for H. Con. Res. 112, authored 
by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, because we have a duty to 
address our nation's looming fiscal obligations. Simply put, we cannot 
continue to kick the proverbial can down the road.
  When I came to the floor to vote for last year's budget, we were $14 
trillion in debt. Today, we are $15.5 trillion in debt. It is projected 
we could be $17 trillion in debt by the end of the year and $21 
trillion in debt by 2021.
  This will be our fourth straight year of trillion dollar deficits. 
Four straight years.
  We are currently spending 10 cents of every dollar on interest to 
finance the debt, even though we're borrowing money at historically low 
rates. If we realistically assume that rates will rise, we could be 
spending close to 1 out of every 6 dollars to finance the debt by the 
end of the decade. And that is under the best case scenario.
  That is money that could be going to our national defense, repairing 
our roads and bridges or life-saving cancer research.
  In 1970, 5 percent of debt held by the public was in foreign hands. 
In 1990, it was 19 percent. Today, more than 40 percent of our 
publically held debt is in foreign hands.
  Who are our bankers? Nations such as China, which is spying on us, 
where human rights are an afterthought, and Catholic bishops, 
Protestant ministers and Tibetan monks are jailed for practicing their 
faith, and oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, which funded 
the radical madrasahs on the Afghan-Pakistan border resulting in the 
rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
  Quite frankly this borrowing is unsustainable, dangerous and 
irresponsible.
  That is why I have been willing to make the hard choices to ensure a 
better future for our children and grandchildren. Every two years I 
take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I do not sign 
pledges to lobbyists or special interest groups.
  That is why I have been working with my colleagues, through my 
assignment as chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee that 
funds the departments of Commerce and Justice, to cut $95 billion in 
federal spending since the start of this Congress, including $11 
billion from my subcommittee alone.
  That is why I have repeatedly voted against the payroll tax holiday, 
which steals from the Social Security Trust Fund. The most recent 
extension alone took $93 billion and brought us nearly a month closer 
to the statutory debt limit. With just one vote in February, we 
practically wiped out all the $95 billion savings from the cuts enacted 
since Republican took back control of the House.
  I have speaking out about the need to get our nation's fiscal house 
in order since George W. Bush was in office.
  In 2006 I introduced legislation to create an independent, bipartisan 
commission to address our debt and deficit. I called it the SAFE 
Commission, short for Securing America's Future Economy. It said 
everything should be on the table for discussion: all entitlement 
spending, all domestic discretionary spending, including defense 
spending, and tax reform, particularly changes to make the tax code 
more simple and fair and to end the practice of tax earmarks that costs 
hundreds of billions of dollars. Congress would be required to vote up 
or down on the commission's recommendations, just as was done in the 
base closing process.
  I was glad to have been joined in this effort by my good friend and 
colleague Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Our legislation served as the 
blueprint for the president's National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility and Reform, commonly referred to as the Simpson-Bowles 
Commission. I am pleased Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette produced a full 
substitute amendment that I believe is the right way forward. I commend 
them for their work.
  The Simpson-Bowles Commission produced a credible plan that gained 
the support of a bipartisan majority of the commission's 18 members. 
Called ``The Moment of Truth,'' the commission's report made clear that 
eliminating the debt and deficit will not be easy and that any reform 
must begin with entitlements. Mandatory and discretionary spending also 
has to be addressed as well other ``sacred cows,'' including tax reform 
and defense spending.
  Had just three more members of the Simpson-Bowles Commission 
supported the recommendations, this plan likely would have passed the 
Congress and be law today. I was disappointed that the president, and 
his administration, walked away from the commission. The president 
failed the country. And the Congress has also failed. This town is 
dysfunctional. If the plan had advanced, we would already be on our way 
in getting our nation's fiscal house in order.
  We have to find a solution to this debt crisis. Failure is not an 
option.
  Congress and the president must be willing to support a plan that 
breaks loose from the special interests holding Washington by the 
throat and return confidence to the country.
  Congress and the president also need to be honest with the American 
people and explain that we cannot solve our nation's financial crisis 
by just cutting waste, fraud and abuse within discretionary accounts. 
The real runaway spending is occurring in our out-of-control 
entitlement costs and the hundreds of billions in annual tax earmarks. 
Until we reach an agreement that addresses these two drivers of our 
deficit and debts, we cannot right our fiscal ship of state.
  I regret that the bipartisan Cooper amendment failed. But since it 
did, today I'm voting for the Ryan budget.
  Like last year's proposal, this budget blueprint calls for 
significant reductions in discretionary spending, for reduced tax rates 
and for the repeal of the costly health care reform law.
  The plan also points out that we can no longer ignore the trillions 
of dollars in unfunded liabilities that consume our budget. There may 
be disagreement on the significant changes in Medicare and Medicaid 
entitlement programs that he proposes, and while his plan is again 
silent on changes needed to reform Social Security entitlements, it 
does recognize that need. Mr. Ryan continues to pull back the curtain 
on the mandatory spending ``elephant in the room,'' which we can no 
longer ignore.
  I want to be clear: I would prefer for this House to pass the 
bipartisan Cooper-LaTourette budget, which is modeled on the bipartisan 
Simpson-Bowles plan. Even though there were some parts that I would 
have liked to change, I spoke in strong support of that budget proposal 
and continue to believe that it is the only plan that can pass the 
Senate. That proposal put everything on the table, and, more 
importantly, sought to achieve enough deficit reductions to turn off 
the need for the sequester that could be so harmful to our defense 
capabilities. But, again, as that bipartisan proposal failed to pass, I 
will support the Ryan plan.
  I do not agree with everything in this proposal, and will work to 
improve future legislation. For example, I regret that this proposal 
does not offer more on ways to address Social Security and tax reform 
efforts.
  This resolution also unfairly targets the federal workforce. While 
there are many federal employees in the Capital region, it is worth 
noting that more than 85 percent of the workforce is outside of 
Washington.
  It is also worth noting that more than 65 percent of all federal 
employees work in agencies that support our national defense 
capabilities as we continue to fight the War on Terror. The first 
American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent and a 
constituent from my congressional district. CIA, FBI, DEA agents, and 
State Department employees are serving side-by-side with our military 
in the fight against the Taliban.
  Let's also not forget the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement agents who are working to stop the flow of illegal 
immigrants and drugs across our borders.
  Or the medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for 
cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism.
  Or the VA doctors and nurses treating veterans from World War II to 
today.
  Or the FDA inspectors working to stop a salmonella outbreak. These 
are all federal employees.
  Mr. Chair, enough is enough. It is simply wrong to claim, as the Ryan 
budget does, that these public servants ``have been immune from the 
effects of the recession.''
  This budget also could be improved by providing for the needs of the 
most vulnerable in our society. As the Congress deals with the budget, 
we must always do it in a way that does not neglect the needs of the 
poor. Scripture (Proverbs 19:17) tells us, ``He who is kind to the poor 
lends to the Lord.'' And in the New Testament Jesus talks a lot about 
the poor. Matthew 25 says that if we ignore the poor and hungry it is 
the same as ignoring him. But this budget resolution is an outline for 
future action, not an enacting piece of legislation that carries the 
weight of law.

[[Page 4538]]

  The budget also seeks to shore up our defense capabilities for the 
next year by finding alternative savings to prevent the across-the-
board cuts that are coming in January as a result of the Joint 
Committee on Deficit Reduction's bipartisan failure of leadership, 
which, regretfully, represents the larger failure of the President and 
both political parties.
  Another example of this failure of leadership is the decision by the 
Senate not to even offer a budget proposal. While the Budget Control 
Act, BCA, does not require a new budget to establish FY 2013 spending 
levels, the BCA was passed with the assumption that the so-called 
supercommittee on deficit reduction would be successful. We need to 
have a robust debate in the public arena as everyone works to mitigate 
the harmful cuts that will result from the coming sequester. It is an 
abdication of responsibility for the Senate to refuse to put forth a 
budget.
  This budget recognizes that our fiscal challenges are too great to 
wait until the next election. We, as elected representatives, have a 
duty to lead. We have a duty to put forth ideas within the public 
sphere and engage in debate. I'm ready to make the tough choices today. 
I vote for the Ryan budget so that the House can get to work.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, listening to the claims of the opponents of this 
budget, one would think it represented a full-frontal assault on the 
welfare state and the entitlements system. However, in fact--with all 
respect to Shakespeare--the sound and fury over this budget ultimately 
signifies nothing. Under this budget, the federal government will spend 
$3.5 trillion next year, while under President Obama's budget the 
federal government will spend $3.8 trillion. The small difference 
between the congressional budget and the President's hardly seem to 
justify the overheated rhetoric we hear emanating from both sides of 
the aisle.
  Even under the most optimistic scenario, this supposedly radical plan 
does not balance the federal budget until my one-year old great-
granddaughter will be in college. Under less optimistic assumption, my 
great granddaughter will be almost 30 before she sees a balanced 
federal budget. This assumes that Congress will adhere to this year's 
budget in future years, a dubious assumption since we cannot bind 
future Congresses to abide by our spending plans. The only budget this 
Congress cannot legally bind any future Congress to follow a budget we 
passed today.
  The only budget this Congress controls is this year's budget. So why 
aren't we making substantial spending cuts this year, instead of 
putting off the hard choices?
  Critics of this budget do have a point when they criticize this 
budget for misplaced priorities, since this plan calls for the federal 
government to continue to waste trillions of dollars in a future 
attempt to police the world. Mr. Speaker, through my years in public 
life I have explained the folly of our hyper-interventionist foreign 
policy; I will not rehash those arguments here. Instead, I will simply 
point out to my colleagues that we can no longer afford to spend 
trillions overseas.
  Also, many of those who share my goal of unwinding the federal 
welfare and entitlement system understand the need to do without 
harming Americans currently reliant on the system. That task will be 
much easier if we began by eliminating overseas militarism, foreign 
aid, and corporate welfare. Yet this so called radical budget treats 
the Pentagon as a sacred cow, as if closing one overseas base or 
canceling one contract for Lockheed-Martin will render America 
defenselessness.
  This budget bill not only fails to reduce spending by changing our 
foreign policy, it also fails to make any meaningful changes in 
domestic spending. While the bill does repel the President's misguided 
national health care plan, and repeal a few other federal programs, it 
leaves the vast majority of the federal welfare-regulatory leviathan 
intact. Despite the claims of both proponents and opponents that this 
budget dramatically downsizes the federal government, it does not 
repeal one unconstitutional cabinet department, not even the Department 
of Education, which has no constitutional authority and if anything has 
diminished the quality of American education.
  Mr. Chair, the problem facing the federal government is at root not a 
fiscal problem but a philosophical problem. Too many people in both 
parties have bought into the idea that the federal government should 
run the economy, run our lives, and run the world. Until that idea is 
repudiated and we once again embrace the principles of liberty and 
constitutional government we will not be able to address our fiscal 
problems. This budget does little to advance the goal of moving us 
toward a free society; therefore I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chair, I rise today to strongly oppose the 
Republicans' budget proposal. I remain committed to creating jobs, 
expanding health care coverage, and promoting education, but this 
budget signals that the Republicans do not. In fact, this budget seems 
designed to have devastating effects on American families and 
businesses, and would dramatically damage our nation's improving 
economy. This legislation makes significant cuts to social programs and 
investments in education, destroys American jobs, and represents the 
latest in a series of Republican attacks on Medicare.
  Although our economy is recovering from years of misguided policies, 
many Americans are still struggling to make ends meet. Gas prices have 
skyrocketed in recent months. Quality health care and education are 
becoming more expensive for the average American. Families are fighting 
to save their homes from foreclosure and escape from under mountains of 
debt.
  Instead of focusing on these important issues, Mr. Ryan and the Tea 
Party have developed a budget that dramatically undermines the social 
safety net that so many Americans depend on. I believe that budgets are 
reflections of our values--and it is clear from this proposal that Mr. 
Ryan and the Tea Party do not possess the same values as ordinary 
Americans.
  By turning Medicare into a voucher program, this budget would 
effectively end Medicare as we know it, and shift thousands of dollars 
of health costs onto seniors. But gutting Medicare is not enough for 
the Republicans. The Ryan budget would also cut more than $1 trillion 
from Medicaid, and endanger health care coverage for over 60 million 
Americans, including low-income children, pregnant women, nursing home 
patients, and persons with disabilities.
  This budget also demonstrates the Republicans' lack of commitment to 
investing in America's youth. By proposing to cut funding for education 
by 45 percent, it is clear that the Republicans do not understand the 
importance of investing in education, and in science, technology, 
engineering, and math in particular, to ensure our nation's 
competitiveness in the global economy. At a time when states are 
drastically reducing their education budgets--including my home state, 
which recently cut funding for education by $5 billion--the 
Republicans' budget attacks critical initiatives ranging from extra 
reading and math help for low-income students to much-needed financial 
aid for college. If Mr. Ryan and the Tea Party get their way, in 2014 
nearly 10 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more 
than $1,000 dollars, and 200,000 children and their families would no 
longer be able to participate in Head Start.
  In my 16 years proudly representing the people of my district, this 
is by far the worst piece of legislation that I have seen. Mr. Ryan and 
the Tea Party have once again put forward a budget to benefit the 
wealthy and special interests groups at the expense of middle-class 
Americans, seniors, veterans, and children. While this budget provides 
huge tax cuts for the richest one percent of Americans, it does nothing 
to stimulate the economy nor create jobs, and would adversely impact 
the Hispanic community and the residents of my district.
  This budget yet again shows how out of touch the Republican Party is 
with the lives of ordinary Americans. Instead of focusing on creating 
jobs and putting Americans back to work, it extends the Bush tax cuts--
which I voted against and continue to oppose--for the wealthiest 
Americans, and provides millionaires and billionaires with an average 
tax cut of $150,000. To put this amount into perspective, $150,000 
would pay for: one years' worth of savings for a senior in the Medicare 
prescription drug ``donut hole'' ($600); one school computer lab 
($40,000); one year of medical care for a veteran returning home 
($8,945); one grant for medical research on chronic diseases ($50,000); 
one tax credit to make a year of college more affordable ($2,500); one 
firefighter, police officer, or first responder kept on the job 
($42,000); and one college student receiving the maximum Pell Grant 
($5,550).
  In today's economic climate, we don't need more subsidies for big oil 
and bigger tax loopholes for hedge fund managers on Wall Street. Yet, 
the Republicans have put forward a budget that provides huge tax cuts 
and subsidies for the mega-rich and corporations, while utterly failing 
to support vital investments in education, job training, research and 
development, and our nation's crumbling infrastructure.
  For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this 
ideological, radical budget, and stand firm in support of job creation, 
health care, and education for all Americans.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
shortsighted foreign assistance cuts in Chairman Ryan's FY13 Budget. 
The Ryan Budget slashes our foreign aid by

[[Page 4539]]

10%, dangerously undermining some of the most low-cost, high-return 
tools in our national security toolbox. And why? Because the Chairman 
claims it will help to reduce the deficit. But the numbers tell a very 
different story. These foreign aid cuts amount to 0.2% reduction in our 
deficit. Two-tenths of one percent! Dr. Mike Tierney of The College of 
William & Mary put it best when he said, ``Cutting foreign aid to 
address the budget crisis is like getting your hair cut in an effort to 
lose weight.''
  In our present fiscal environment, every dollar we spend must yield 
the highest possible return on our investment. And that means doing 
everything possible to efficiently reduce the threat of costly conflict 
and build stable, peaceful American allies. And who is on the 
frontlines of building peace? Our State Department diplomats, our USAID 
development professionals, our Peace Corps Volunteers, our US Institute 
of Peace civilian power, our Inter-American Foundation grassroots 
development capacity, to name a few. And the budget that supports this 
smart power amounts to less than 2% of our total budget. Talk about big 
return on small investment!
  But the Ryan Budget cuts will also have real reverberations for US 
workers. Foreign aid creates strong markets for US goods; 11 of our top 
15 trading partners are graduates of US foreign assistance programs. 
And one out of every five American jobs is tied to trade. So, not only 
does this ill-conceived budget jeopardize our national security 
efforts, it takes an unnecessary swipe at American workers in the midst 
of a fragile economic recovery.
  Mr. Chair, make no mistake about it: I firmly believe we need to get 
our fiscal house in order. So for this reason, we must support foreign 
assistance because foreign assistance supports peace. And peace is the 
least costly, most important tool in our national security toolbox.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, over the last two days, we have debated 
very different visions and choices for addressing the budgetary 
challenges facing our Nation. We do not have a difference on the 
question of whether or not we should reduce our long-term deficits and 
the debt. We must. We have a difference over how to do it.
  Unfortunately, the Republican plan makes all the wrong choices. It 
abandons the economic recovery and ends the Medicare guarantee to 
seniors, while providing a whopping average tax break of almost 
$400,000 for people making over $1 million a year. This Republican plan 
will weaken economic growth. It rewards corporations that ship American 
jobs overseas, while slashing investments in education, in science and 
research, and infrastructure that help America grow our economy right 
here at home. In short, it is a path to greater prosperity, if you're 
already wealthy. But it leaves seniors, working Americans, and future 
generations behind.
  During the course of this debate, we will have the opportunity to 
consider several alternatives to the Republican budget, offered by 
Democrats. Every single one of these alternatives is far superior to 
the Republican plan, because they embody a more sensible, fair approach 
to our fiscal challenges.
  To be clear, the only Democratic alternative that I fully and wholly 
support is the one I will offer. I have concerns with certain aspects 
of the other Democratic plans. I believe some of them rely too heavily 
on raising revenues and spend more than I think is necessary, and some 
of them make cuts to defense that I believe are too deep. Nevertheless, 
they provide important alternative approaches to reducing the deficit.
  Another proposal was offered by Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette. I 
commend these Members for offering an alternative budget. However, 
claims that their proposal embodied the recommendations of the Simpson-
Bowles Commission are simply untrue. Most importantly, their proposal 
calls for significantly less revenue than Simpson-Bowles. It does this 
by changing the baseline used as the starting point for the revenue 
increase. The Simpson-Bowles baseline assumed the revenue generated by 
allowing the top tax rate to rise to 39 percent--as it is scheduled to 
do under current law. The Cooper-LaTourette proposal failed to account 
for that revenue. The difference is substantial--approximately $1 
trillion in revenue. I believe in truth-in-advertising, and Cooper-
LaTourette is very different from Simpson-Bowles. It moves the goal 
posts. As a result, the Cooper-LaTourette proposal has a significantly 
higher ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases compared to the 
deficit reduction in the Simpson-Bowles package. The Cooper-LaTourette 
plan also differs from Simpson-Bowles in other respects, such as by 
making deeper cuts in spending for discretionary programs. And it cuts 
nondefense discretionary funding by $350 billion more than required by 
the Budget Control Act over ten years--which is also inconsistent with 
Simpson-Bowles.
  I continue to believe the original Simpson-Bowles proposal offers an 
important framework for achieving a bipartisan deficit reduction plan. 
I would also point out that both the President's budget and the 
Democratic alternative I have offered share many of the same principles 
as Simpson-Bowles. Indeed, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles said the 
following about the President's budget:

       In the framework he announced in April and what he 
     submitted to the Select Committee in September, the President 
     embraced many of the goals and principles outlined by the 
     Fiscal Commission and incorporated some of the policies we 
     proposed. We are pleased that the President's latest budget 
     continues to focus on deficit reduction and are also 
     encouraged to see real, specific policies for limiting tax 
     expenditures, slowing health care cost growth, and reducing 
     spending throughout the government.

  While they went on to urge the President to go further, they 
recognized that his budget was a step in the right direction. The 
Democratic alternative budget mirrors the overall framework of the 
President's budget, and actually reduces the deficit more than the 
President's plan.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Coffman of Colorado) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 112) establishing the budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 597, he reported the concurrent resolution 
back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 191, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               YEAS--228

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)

[[Page 4540]]


     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Broun (GA)
     Dicks
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Mack
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pingree (ME)
     Rangel
     Watt

                              {time}  1527

  Mrs. LOWEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 151, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________